Are special effects and 3D ruining movies?

Bodhidharma · 06-01-2011 1:03pm #1

That is a question I have been debating for a few weeks now. In my opinion special effects and 3D movies are having a negative effect.

3D is a particular annoyance to me. Fair enough Avatar looked impressive, but taking away the technical aspect of the movie, focusing on the story and characters, it was nothing to write home about. Avatar is by far the best 3D movie I have seen and I wasn't bowled over by it.

Another thing I hate about 3D is that you can get charged a premium price for watching a movie that isn't even improved by 3D, Toy Story 3 and Jackass 3D spring to mind, and you hae to wear uncomfortable glasses.

Special effects like those in Inception for example were again impressive, but there was too many. It takes away from the story.

I dont think special effects or 3D are a reason to go to a movie. I mean, would the Godfather have been better if you could see the bullets flying into James Caan's body?

Selling a movie based on special effects is going to affect how movies are made in the future, studios will be more concerned with selling premium 3D seats than the quality of the story and that has to have a negative effect.

So whats your opinion, am I a dinosaur for my dislike of modern technology?

krudler · 06-01-2011 1:16pm

Special effects are great when they're used properly, otherwise we wouldnt have movies like T2 or Jurassic Park or Star Wars or countless other ones that use some kind of effects, be they practical or digital. I do agree filmmakers have gotten lazy, using cgi to replace practical sets (looking at you George Lucas!) or forgoing great stunts to use cgi cars and the like. Can you imagine something like the finale to Mad Max 2 done with cgi? eugh.

There are a ton of movies that use special effects and cgi so well you dont even notice it, and thats the way it should be. like below:

Special effects like those in Inception for example were again impressive, but there was too many. It takes away from the story.

The majority of effects in Inception were done practically, the rotating hallway, the snow fotress, the tilting hotel bar, the explosion outside the french cafe, the zero g stuff, all done for real, obviously cgi was used to make the city fold over and the crumbling buildings at the end were as well, but the majority was real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB0PyyLNIV4

Mickeroo · 06-01-2011 1:52pm

3D being tacked on to movies to bump up revenue is a joke but when used properly (like Avatar) I think it has it's place. I reckon it's only a fad though and will probably go away at some point.

Sometimes special effects can be the only reson to see a movie, take Tron:Legacy, not a bad movie, not a great one either but the visuals(and probably the soundtrack in fairness) made it well worth seeing.

Like Krudler said the effects in Inception were mostly practical and they were never really in your face anyway, they were impressive without having to be centre stage.

chin_grin · 06-01-2011 1:56pm

Yeah 3D doesn't improve a movie or make me go "oh wow, it's in 3d? Must be good, I'm there!"

I'm pretty sure (hoping) that this is just another gimmick that'll lose steam soon.

On the subject of Avatar though, check this review out (same guy who did the 70 minute review of Star Wars Phantom Menace).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0

Gulliver · 06-01-2011 2:03pm

The worst thing about 3D movies is the way they have to shoehorn in scenes where someone/thing comes towards the screen. Takes you out of the moment (especially if you don't have 3D!)

Bing_IRL · 06-01-2011 2:13pm

Cinemas have to charge a premium for 3D movies because the equipment required to project them is about 4 times the cost of 35mm.

Luckily enough though, if you don't like 3D, every movie that is being released in 3D comes out in 2D as well.

The studios have started to cash in on the 3D experience alright but they're also starting to cop on to the fact that rubbish 3D will kill the thing. Just look at the latest Harry Potter - the 3D version was postponed after they saw what happened to Clash of the Titans

Galvasean · 06-01-2011 2:26pm

Bing_IRL wrote: »

Cinemas have to charge a premium for 3D movies because the equipment required to project them is about 4 times the cost of 35mm.

Luckily enough though, if you don't like 3D, every movie that is being released in 3D comes out in 2D as well.

The studios have started to cash in on the 3D experience alright but they're also starting to cop on to the fact that rubbish 3D will kill the thing. Just look at the latest Harry Potter - the 3D version was postponed after they saw what happened to Clash of the Titans

Speaking of Clash of the Titans, in relation to your point on 3D films being released in 2D, for a while some films were coming out "2D in selected cinemas". I wanted to see CotT in 2D, but found it hard to find a 2D screening so had to fork out the extra for 3D (complete waste BTW). I think 3D is getting a bit of a backlash now after the CotT fiasco, not to mention the way toy story 3 sold way more 2D tickets than 3D ones (makes sense, who wants to fork out an extra €2.50 per ticket for a family of 4?). Hopefully film studios will wise up to this and realise that 'in 3D' is more likely to make potetial viewers wary than interested.

TLDR: Do 3D right or don't do it at all.

BopNiblets · 06-01-2011 2:29pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgx-Vw7zPe0

According to MK, yep!

gbee · 06-01-2011 2:33pm

In it many reincarnations 3D has not been successful, the current crop are showing the state-of-the-art and now it's up to the public whether this approach becomes standard.

I have a great appreciation for older movies, like the 1960s classic Bullet ~ real driving, real stunts, real explosions.

So I think I agree with you.

mike65 · 06-01-2011 3:02pm

Yes. For all the obvious reasons, just because you can show a bullet flying through the air in with the camera perched on its proverbial shoulder type shot doesn't mean you should. Old school physical effects meant technicians and the director had to work much harder and think their way round any problems to depict a scene, this meant the way a shot was achieved would result in a more satisfying and plausible visual composition even if the actual quality of the special effect might not have been top draw.

The ability to fake visuals on a laptop has been a zero sum game for the unfortunate viewers, its clear that producers are led more than ever by cheap visual sensation (Bruce Willis ending up on a jet fighters tail is a good example recently seen) with the script coming in a very poor second. 3D is the lastest manifestation of the gratuitous CGI boom (and hopefully bust).

don ramo · 06-01-2011 5:10pm

as long a the $$$ keeps rolling in i dont think the studios really care what the SFX take away from films, i mean a lot of people say avatar had a very poor story, yet grossed $2.7 billion in cinemas alone, as long as executives in these studios see these figures theyll keep pumping it out,

and with avatar being such a hugh success, it wont be till later this year or next year that well get a massive onslought of 3D films, what has come out in 2010 is gonna be noting when compared to 2012,

only way to stop it is convince the whole planet to stop going to 3D viewings,

:D

Bodhidharma · 06-01-2011 5:46pm

Good to see that I'm not alone.

To quote Quentin Tarantino “This CGI bulls**t is the death knell of cinema. If I'd wanted all that computer game bulls**t, I'd have stuck my di*k in a Nintendo.”

krudler · 06-01-2011 5:56pm

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Good to see that I'm not alone.

To quote Quentin Tarantino “This CGI bulls**t is the death knell of cinema. If I'd wanted all that computer game bulls**t, I'd have stuck my di*k in a Nintendo.”

Who needs cgi when you've got hundreds of 70s movies to rip off :pac:

NoDice · 06-01-2011 6:09pm

Alice in Wonderland & Toy Story 3 was a bit of a joke tbf with the 3D. Avatar, as the OP said, was only impressive because of the 3D - I share this opinion.

However I do like it. I'm easily excitable and 3D is just one of those novelties I've been drawn too (but disappointed by in some films such as those above.). I loved Resident Evil last year in 3D! That film basically was everything I had expected from a 3D action flick. Blood splattering my (uncomfortable) glasses, a big, bat-sh.t crazy axe coming my way, explosions, bullets being shot at me.

Really enjoyed it.

So I guess it just depends on the film?? I personally think 3D should be kept for all action flicks!

don ramo · 06-01-2011 6:19pm

NoDice wrote: »

Alice in Wonderland & Toy Story 3 was a bit of a joke tbf with the 3D. Avatar, as the OP said, was only impressive because of the 3D - I share this opinion.

However I do like it. I'm easily excitable and 3D is just one of those novelties I've been drawn too (but disappointed by in some films such as those above.). I loved Resident Evil last year in 3D! That film basically was everything I had expected from a 3D action flick. Blood splattering my (uncomfortable) glasses, a big, bat-sh.t crazy axe coming my way, explosions, bullets being shot at me. Really enjoyed it.

So I guess it just depends on the film?? I personally think 3D should be kept for all action flicks!

i thought RE was a big let down, it was the first film since avatar that was actually shot in 3D with the same equipment as avatar, but it just didnt work, i think why avatar worked so well was the imersion you got from the 3D, when there runing along the trees and you almost felt like you were on an oppostie branch running side by side with them, the 3D really helped bring you into the world of pandora,

i like my action films just as much as the next person, but 3D i feel adds noting to the expierience, all it does is make my eyes sore, and dulls the screen, so i ask why i should pay an extra E2 for that

DeVore · 06-01-2011 6:31pm

Went to see MegaMind yesterday in 3D because the 2D version had ended and they "werent getting it back".

I dont like 3D and its a negative for me. I wouldnt have seen the flic yesterday if I hadnt been bringing my nephew on a day out. For me it just detracts from the flic.

I have a busted left eye too, so the 3D gives me a headache... I hope it dies a death soon, kinda like IMax has... a sideshow to the main event of proper cinema.

DeV.

Hank_Jones · 06-01-2011 6:44pm

Bing_IRL wrote: »

Cinemas have to charge a premium for 3D movies because the equipment required to project them is about 4 times the cost of 35mm.

Luckily enough though, if you don't like 3D, every movie that is being released in 3D comes out in 2D as well.

The studios have started to cash in on the 3D experience alright but they're also starting to cop on to the fact that rubbish 3D will kill the thing. Just look at the latest Harry Potter - the 3D version was postponed after they saw what happened to Clash of the Titans

What actually happened is that they ran out of time trying to convert the film to 3D, to a sufficient standard anyway.
They didn't want to postpone the release of the film because of this and possibly alienate fans of the franchise, so they released it in 2D.

The next Harry Potter film will unfortunately be released in 3D.
Jumping on the bandwagon at the end of the series just doesn't seem right.

don ramo · 06-01-2011 6:51pm

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Jumping on the bandwagon at the end of the series just doesn't seem right.

yeah but now we can wait for the ultimate boxset, all 8 harry potter films now brought to you in stunning 3D so vivid you can actually touch harrys scar, your favourite series like youve never seen them before,

macquarie · 06-01-2011 7:02pm

I've seen a good few of the new 3d ones and believe if that's the direction hollywood is heading, then yes the film industry is ultimately doomed. I know the OP isn't just talking about 3d movies, but special effects in general. They cost so much and take huge amounts of effort and are dumbing down the collective audience everywhere meaning the directors have no time to focus on storyline. The odd movie comes out (maybe 1 / year) like inception in 2010, or dark knight in 2008, where it works but the majority of movies being churned out at the moment are pure sh1te.

Recently I've watched movies like Psycho, The Good The Bad & The Ugly, 12 Angry Men, Sunset Boulevard, etc. Movies where CGI/3D effects are nowhere to be seen, but also movies that are considered among the best of all time.

I dunno what I'm tryna say, with this emergence and trend towards visual effects - especially in a transition period like the last 20 years it's very rare for a genuine classic to be released.

don ramo · 06-01-2011 7:52pm

macquarie wrote: »

I dunno what I'm tryna say, with this emergence and trend towards visual effects - especially in a transition period like the last 20 years it's very rare for a genuine classic to be released.

yeah but there probably are just as many excellent films being made now as years ago, great films were never released by the dozen, every year youd get the 3 or 4 excellent films, maybe a dozen or more very good films, and then a lash of average instantly forgetable films, and a pile of sh1te films thrown in, this has always been the case, its just looking back now it may seem like a classic was being relased every other week, when in fact it was probably every other month if not longer, rememeer it took decades for all those clasics to made,

i think the problem now is that there seems to be more films being released, and it has diluted the quailty of the industry, when films like tranformers 2 can pull in $800 million, and a film like the pianist pulls in $120 million, at which audience do you think the studio is gonna aim there next film at, therefore more money will be spent on sub-par mindless films than genuinely good ones,

L31mr0d · 06-01-2011 8:09pm

Gulliver wrote: »

The worst thing about 3D movies is the way they have to shoehorn in scenes where someone/thing comes towards the screen. Takes you out of the moment (especially if you don't have 3D!)

I loved the way they parodied this in Arrested Development (where are all the AD clips on youtube, wth?)

Put on 3D glasses now

Micheal: Who threw the tomato?

Warper · 06-01-2011 11:07pm

They both have their place but when over-reliance on either happens, it sucks. Some films these days, you may as well be watching a PS3 game. The thing is with Hollywood, if heads are gonna pay to watch it then they will keep on churning them out until they die a death.

quazzy · 07-01-2011 8:42am

Warper wrote: »

The thing is with Hollywood, if heads are gonna pay to watch it then they will keep on churning them out until they die a death.

Have only seem Avatar in 3D and I enjoyed it. (Glasses were a bit uncomfortable though)

I agree with the above. But, I was also thinking that the more releases that are 3D only would mean that the film companies have found a good way to protect their investment from people recording the movies and sharing on the net.

johnny_ultimate · 07-01-2011 10:15am

CGI isn't an inherently negative thing. I was at WETA workshop the other day (well, the small tourist part :pac:) and those guys do some damn fine work. Take Lord of the Rings - their pretty confident use of CG, miniatures and other special effects were used to wonderful effect, often all in the same shot. If it enhances the storytelling, it is to be welcomed: after all, stories can be told now that weren't possible twenty years ago. But when it's used badly, there is little worse than CGI. Wolverine would be one recent example where the effects were so dreadful it actively detracted from the experience: not that the film was in anyway competent, but still. As technology improves, it will clearly become more and more confident - there were very few moments in Avatar or Tron where I thought it looked dreadful, although both those films had a huge range of flaws. Hard to deny they were both extremely pretty though.

3D on the other hand I hate more and more with each release. Tron particularly was illustrative of how redundant it is. Much of the opening scenes and the closing ones are fully 2D, and you've got to question what the point is when the glasses merely darken those scenes. The actual 3D sequences were ho-hum anyway, so yeah, redundant. The lesson of Avatar - use 3D to add depth to the computer creations - has been ignored by so many others. One small benefit is a heap of old stuff getting re-releases, even if it has superfluous 3D added, and was nice to see Toy Story and Battle Royale in the cinema in 2010. Still, Blu-Ray is almost the preferable way to enhance older releases.

It's attracting more people to the cinema, which is good, but when artistic visions are being compromised by the addition of superfluous third dimension, it's a damn shame.

don ramo · 07-01-2011 11:25am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's attracting more people to the cinema, which is good,

but its not attracting more people, its incresing the box office money, but less people went to the cinema last year than the year before,

gandalf · 07-01-2011 12:22pm

As someone who wears glasses I find 3d a hindrance to enjoyment of a film. You are aware that you have these specs on you and they are an annoyance. Couple that with as others have said that there are shots that are thrown into the film just because of the 3d factor, "oh look that axe/sword/spear/branch is coming right at me and they add nothing to the narrative of the film.

Good special effects are ones that you don't notice, they blend seamlessly into the story that is being told. LotR is a good example because there was a lot of CGI in it but it seemed right.

I watched Die Another Day on TV the other day and it contained a good example of bad CGI. The infamous "Kite Surfing" scene looked like it was lifted from a console game. That is exactly the kind of CGI that Hollywood need to avoid in films otherwise they will eventually drive people away from seeing these films.

Unfortunately as long as the proles keep throwing their money at rubbish then film studios will keep churning out 3D for the sake of 3D and CGI Spectaculars for the sake of them at the expense of good storytelling.

Galvasean · 07-01-2011 1:58pm

I watched Alien3 on BluRay yesterday. That CGI Xenomorph was a ghastly sight, but not in a good way. By contrast the 'puppet' alien looked real (technically it was real).
I must mention Jurassic Park now. The special effects in that film rock. It can be difficult to tell which parts are CG and which are animatronics. That's how special effects should work. If you can tell* something is CGI then the special effects have failed. A good example of seamless CGI is the car chase in Bad Boys 2. I honestly would not have spotted the CG cars had someone not pointed them out to me.
*Exceptions being in cases like Jurassic Park where you know it's a CGI dinosaur because no robotic dinosaurs capable of that kind of movement exist.

jester77 · 07-01-2011 2:03pm

Not the biggest fan of 3D, but when it's done right it can really add to the movie experience. I've seen a few 3D movies and most were not very memorable from a 3D pov but a few of the scenes in Piranha 3D (crude as they were) had me in stitches and made a poor movie rememberable.

krudler · 07-01-2011 2:15pm

Galvasean wrote: »

I watched Alien3 on BluRay yesterday. That CGI Xenomorph was a ghastly sight, but not in a good way. By contrast the 'puppet' alien looked real (technically it was real).
I must mention Jurassic Park now. The special effects in that film rock. It can be difficult to tell which parts are CG and which are animatronics. That's how special effects should work. If you can tell* something is CGI then the special effects have failed. A good example of seamless CGI is the car chase in Bad Boys 2. I honestly would not have spotted the CG cars had someone not pointed them out to me.
*Exceptions being in cases like Jurassic Park where you know it's a CGI dinosaur because no robotic dinosaurs capable of that kind of movement exist.

Hell yes they do, still flawless after 18 (!) years.

CGI isnt necessary to do great effects, compare the alien queen in Aliens to the one in AVP, one is a puppet and still looks great, she moves with weight and looks fantastic in some shots, then the cgi one is running at full pelt and smashing through stuff, and it looks cgi. Cameron had a small budget and did wonders with it (Aliens cost 18m, companies spend more on the music rights these days) editing and lighting can cover up a basic effect, seeing something in all its cgi glory just makes it look cgi. when its done right it can be amazing, Davy Jones is still the crowning achievment of cgi in the past decade.

mike65 · 07-01-2011 2:33pm

18m bucks was decent, not huge but decent in 1987. Movie inflation is through the roof in the last 25 years.

Duggy747 · 07-01-2011 3:55pm

CGI animators and designers really do out-do themselves when they're pushed. Transformers was amazing when I saw it. Bay had commented on how he used a Japanese guy (of course :pac:) on the SFX team who practically single-handedly figured out how to sort out where all the Transformers pieces go when they change.

The T-Rex in JP still looks amazing because it integrated so well into it's first scene (rain, against the jeep headlights, etc) as well as shifting between CGI & puppetry you believed the dinosaur had weight and was actually there.

It's always down to how CGI is used. If a scene is completely CGI we'll know straight away and start analyzing it's quality rather than what it's supposed to achieve in the film.

Lucas just shows off what his CGI team can do rather than using superior practical effects, which will always win at the end of the day.

Are special effects and 3D ruining movies?

Comments