(too old to reply)
What is a "Brechtian trick"? (From Ebert: Why 3D movies will never catch on)
Berkeley Brett
2011-01-26 02:59:01 UTC
I hope you are all in good spirits.

I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in the
following writing? I apologize for the fact that you may have to read
a bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is a
rather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be a
worthwhile collection of thoughts.

Of course, I assume that "Brechtian" refers to Bertol Brecht, but this
alone does not clarify the meaning.

(Also, if anyone cares to comment on the subject of the article, I
would certainly be glad to hear your thoughts....)

Film critic Roger Ebert has long been a critic of 3D films -- he
claims that they are nearly always too dark, and that the 3D effects
they produce really don't add much of anything to the films in which
they are used.

A movie-insider recently wrote to Mr. Ebert to agree that 3D effects
in film are not very satisfying -- but he maintains that the problem
isn't with the technology, it is with human evolution: the brain has
evolved in such a way that 3D effects will NEVER be satisfying to
human beings.

He makes a very interesting case here. It's a bit technical, but I
think you'll find it interesting....

"Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed." by Roger Ebert:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

=== begin quoted text ===

I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the
discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never
will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior
and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is
closed.

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left [photo at link above],
the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern
cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image
interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979
for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of
its effect....

[From Walter Murch's letter to Mr. Ebert]:

Hello Roger,

I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the
film, I agree with your comments about 3D.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker)
and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge
Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when
looked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also
noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it
does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has
something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying
the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier
strobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue.
A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at
least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the
audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is
80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet,
then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D
films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And
600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem
before. All living things with eyes have always focussed [sic] and
converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at
six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the
base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle
resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window
and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That
imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are
almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like
tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time,
difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra
hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches.
They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never
prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of
technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing
true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D
films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of
milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is
and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience
that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It
is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really
gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike
"spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality
than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive.
The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed
up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

=== end quoted text ===

Roger Ebert's blog:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/

To me, the most interesting thing that Mr. Murch says is
this:

=== begin quoted text ===

3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"
relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if
the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the
picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will
give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with....

=== end quoted text ===

Now, one might read his piece as a proclamation of the limitations of
the human brain -- but I see it as quite the opposite: it is a
*celebration* of the human brain! The reason we are often
"underwhelmed" by the tricks and techniques of 3D films is that our
own brains are so magnificently capable of generating what Mr. Murch
calls " 'spaceless' space" -- and that gift of the mind/imagination is
so compelling that something like 3D even at its best just doesn't add
much to it. (It can even distract from it.) Perhaps this is why
"stereo photography" -- such a big craze in the early days of
photography -- is largely regarded as a quaint antique (fascinating as
it can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography )

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.ForeverFunds.org/
My plan for erasing poverty from the world with micro-endowments that
"give" forever into the future
Arcadian Rises
2011-01-26 03:50:40 UTC
Post by Berkeley Brett
I hope you are all in good spirits.
I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in the
following writing?  I apologize for the fact that you may have to read
a bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is a
rather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be a
worthwhile collection of thoughts.
No need to read the entire message, the penultimate pargraph will
suffice for those who are familiar with Brecht theater and stage
directions, Mother Courage etc. I am not, but I am curious about the
answer and I want to make it easier for a Brecht expert, or fasn, to
answer the question.
Post by Berkeley Brett
=== begin quoted text ===
3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"
relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if
the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the
picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will
give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with....
=== end quoted text ===
Roland Hutchinson
2011-01-26 05:02:55 UTC
Post by Arcadian Rises
Post by Berkeley Brett
I hope you are all in good spirits.
I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in the
following writing?  I apologize for the fact that you may have to read
a bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is a
rather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be a
worthwhile collection of thoughts.
No need to read the entire message, the penultimate pargraph will
suffice for those who are familiar with Brecht theater and stage
directions, Mother Courage etc. I am not, but I am curious about the
answer and I want to make it easier for a Brecht expert, or fasn, to
answer the question.
Post by Berkeley Brett
=== begin quoted text ===
3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"
relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if
the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture
in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you
more dimensionality than you can ever cope with....
=== end quoted text ===
Brecht deliberately did things in his plays that would cause the audience
to remember that they were in fact sitting in a theater watching a
presentation, not observers of natural action. In other word, perhaps,
he sought to undermine their "willing suspension of disbelief" that
previous playwrights counted on exploiting, and thereby to provoke them
to think instead of relaxing and just enjoying the show as entertainment.

It's known as an effect of alienation or distancing (Ger:
Verfremdungseffekt); here's a possibly better explantion than mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distancing_effect

What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of the
way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a large
room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;
ordinary 2D movies can therefore create a more "immersive" experience, of
the sort Hollywood, unlike Brecht, likes to supply.

By "almost a Brechtian trick" he means that 3D projection necessarily
produces something almost like the Brechtian _Verfremdung_. Brecht did
it, quite deliberately, by frequently breaking the fourth wall and other
theatrical techniques; 3D does it, without meaning to, by sending our
sense of vision contradictory cues.
--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Jared
2011-01-26 05:13:36 UTC
Post by Roland Hutchinson
What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of the
way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a large
room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;
Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching a
movie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometric
implications of the camera separation.

If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show
a plane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it
means they simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way
apart which is totally and predictably unrealistic.

This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply a
product of incompetence.
Roland Hutchinson
2011-01-26 06:17:32 UTC
Post by Jared
Post by Roland Hutchinson
What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of
the way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a
large room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;
Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching a
movie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometric
implications of the camera separation.
If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show a
plane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it means
they simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apart
which is totally and predictably unrealistic.
This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply a
product of incompetence.
Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would still
feel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and the
convergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict. Our
brain knows something is fishy, even if we don't. This is not a novel
theory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.
--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Lewis
2011-01-26 16:57:48 UTC
Post by Roland Hutchinson
Post by Jared
Post by Roland Hutchinson
What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of
the way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a
large room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;
Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching a
movie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometric
implications of the camera separation.
If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show a
plane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it means
they simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apart
which is totally and predictably unrealistic.
This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply a
product of incompetence.
Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would still
feel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and the
convergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict. Our
brain knows something is fishy, even if we don't. This is not a novel
theory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practice
your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if I
haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is often
distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it at
all.

(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
--
Ten Minutes ago you beat a man senseless. He was senseless before I
beat him.
Peter Brooks
2011-01-26 17:39:46 UTC
Post by Lewis
Post by Roland Hutchinson
Post by Jared
Post by Roland Hutchinson
What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of
the way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a
large room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;
Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching a
movie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometric
implications of the camera separation.
If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show a
plane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it means
they simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apart
which is totally and predictably unrealistic.
This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply a
product of incompetence.
Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would still
feel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and the
convergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict.  Our
brain knows something is fishy, even if we don't.  This is not a novel
theory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practice
your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if I
haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is often
distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it at
all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a question
about that.

It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, or
not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back in
the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
Steve Hayes
2011-01-27 03:02:23 UTC
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:39:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
Post by Lewis
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practice
your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if I
haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is often
distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it at
all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a question
about that.
It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, or
not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back in
the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I was a
little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I saw a 3D film was
back in the 1950s, which was the previous time they had come into fashion, to
be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film I saw back then was "Hondo", but
when it hit the drive-in circuit they showed only one of the prints.

But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D effect
after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on the audience,
but rather the effect on the director, who changed the story to provide him
with the opportunity to play with his toys - in that case a lunging
sea-serpent.

It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line of text in a
different colour and font, and every third line flashing.

The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is the director
saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter Brooks
2011-01-27 03:03:57 UTC
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:39:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
Post by Lewis
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practice
your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if I
haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is often
distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it at
all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a question
about that.
It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, or
not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back in
the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically.  That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I was a
little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I saw a 3D film was
back in the 1950s, which was the previous time they had come into fashion, to
be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film I saw back then was "Hondo", but
when it hit the drive-in circuit they showed only one of the prints.
But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D effect
after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on the audience,
but rather the effect on the director, who changed the story to provide him
with the opportunity to play with his toys - in that case a lunging
sea-serpent.
I agree completely. 'The voyage of the Dawn Treader' is the first
really excellent 3D film that I've watched, where the film was so good
that the 3D ceased to intrude, as you say. The sea-monster was quite
brilliant.

I quite enjoyed a 3D version of 'Shrek' (not the latest, nasty,
production) - but there it was rather because the 3D was one of the
jokes, with the director drawing attention to it for comic effect.
tony cooper
2011-01-27 04:23:04 UTC
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:03:56 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
I agree completely. 'The voyage of the Dawn Treader' is the first
really excellent 3D film that I've watched, where the film was so good
that the 3D ceased to intrude, as you say. The sea-monster was quite
brilliant.
The only 3D movie I've seen is "The Creature From The Black Lagoon".
I was 16 at the time. Been there, done that.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Dean
2011-01-27 04:35:56 UTC
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:39:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
Post by Lewis
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough
practice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice
that if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is
often distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't
notice it at all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a
question about that.
It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,
or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back
in the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I
was a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I
saw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time they
had come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film
I saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuit
they showed only one of the prints.
But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D
effect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on
the audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed the
story to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - in
that case a lunging sea-serpent.
It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line of
text in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.
The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is the
director saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"
Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.
BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specs
on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there an
etiquette?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Lewis
2011-01-27 08:11:21 UTC
Post by John Dean
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:39:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
Post by Lewis
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough
practice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice
that if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is
often distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't
notice it at all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a
question about that.
It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,
or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back
in the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I
was a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I
saw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time they
had come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film
I saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuit
they showed only one of the prints.
But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D
effect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on
the audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed the
story to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - in
that case a lunging sea-serpent.
It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line of
text in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.
The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is the
director saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"
Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.
BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specs
on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there an
etiquette?
I can never decide. I usually end up with eyeballs, glasses, 3D glasses.
Sometimes I just take my glasses off, though that rarely lasts.

I disagree about Toy Story 3, by the way. I think it is one of the
best examples of how to properly use 3D in a film (Avatar is the other
one).

With Toy Story 3 (and the 3D remasters of Toy Story 1 and 2), the 3D is
used to add DEPTH to the film where most films use 3D to have things
pointing out at the audience in a sort of "look ma, look what I can do!"
effect. This tends to make you feel as if you are watching something
that is really happening, but since the film is animated, there's still
a plane with you one one side and the animation on the other. I think
this works, and the animated 'pointy' 3D movies just feel like every time
there's something pointy its to push you out.

I quite enjoyed the 3D aspect of the Toy Story movies.

Avatar was something else entirely on the surface, but it used 3D for
the same purpose, to pull you into the screen and make you feel like you
were seeing something that was really happening. It added depth and
height to the image, but the effect was carried through-out the film
where in most others, there is a definite feeling that, "Oh, here's
another 3D bit." With Avatar, every single second of film is 'a 3D bit'
and so you forget about it, but are still subject to the effect.
--
#27794 <Vellius> ... I wonder if the really nerdy Klingons learn how to
speak english
Peter Brooks
2011-01-27 09:21:33 UTC
Post by Lewis
Post by John Dean
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:39:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
Post by Peter Brooks
Post by Lewis
While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough
practice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice
that if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is
often distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't
notice it at all.
(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)
What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a
question about that.
It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,
or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back
in the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided the
visual field prismatically.  That's very impressive, and, I'd have
thought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.
I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I
was a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I
saw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time they
had come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film
I saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuit
they showed only one of the prints.
But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D
effect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on
the audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed the
story to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - in
that case a lunging sea-serpent.
It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line of
text in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.
The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is the
director saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"
Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.
BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specs
on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there an
etiquette?
I can never decide. I usually end up with eyeballs, glasses, 3D glasses.
Sometimes I just take my glasses off, though that rarely lasts.
I disagree about Toy Story 3, by the way. I think it is one of the
best examples of how to properly use 3D in a film (Avatar is the other
one).
With Toy Story 3 (and the 3D remasters of Toy Story 1 and 2), the 3D is
used to add DEPTH to the film where most films use 3D to have things
pointing out at the audience in a sort of "look ma, look what I can do!"
effect. This tends to make you feel as if you are watching something
that is really happening, but since the film is animated, there's still
a plane with you one one side and the animation on the other. I think
this works, and the animated 'pointy' 3D movies just feel like every time
there's something pointy its to push you out.
I quite enjoyed the 3D aspect of the Toy Story movies.
Avatar was something else entirely on the surface, but it used 3D for
the same purpose, to pull you into the screen and make you feel like you
were seeing something that was really happening. It added depth and
height to the image, but the effect was carried through-out the film
where in most others, there is a definite feeling that, "Oh, here's
another 3D bit." With Avatar, every single second of film is 'a 3D bit'
and so you forget about it, but are still subject to the effect.
Avatar was presented well, as you say, but I think that, as a non-
intrusive 3D film "Dawn Treader" was better.

In Avatar the flying islands and flying sequences don't gel as well.
The creatures aren't as good either. Excellent film, though,
certainly, whatever it was trying to say.
Evan Kirshenbaum
2011-01-29 05:30:05 UTC
Post by John Dean
Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the
3D. BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing
the 3D specs on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the
3D? Is there an etiquette?
3D on top of regular. The other way wouldn't sit right, and the
temples on the 3D glasses are wider (probably specifically for that
reason).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |People think it must be fun to be a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |super genius, but they don't
Chicago (1964-1982) |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
***@gmail.com | Calvin

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Cheryl
2011-01-29 11:48:49 UTC
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by John Dean
Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the
3D. BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing
the 3D specs on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the
3D? Is there an etiquette?
3D on top of regular. The other way wouldn't sit right, and the
temples on the 3D glasses are wider (probably specifically for that
reason).
Besides, if I wore 3-D glasses without my real glasses, I wouldn't be
able to see much on the screen.

The first time (this time around) that I went to a 3-D show, I
periodically tried it with and without the 3-D glasses. Sometimes there
wasn't much difference; maybe a bit more blur without them. Other times,
there was.

I gather from what I've read that there are different ways to make a 3-D
movie, and people argue passionately about which ones work best, but I
don't know enough about the subject myself to have an opinion.
--
Cheryl