tylerp wrote:I'm sure there are countless new technologies in film that were considered gimmicks at first but are commonplace now. Say... sound, colour, animation, 3d animation, soundtracks, IMAX, set design, gear for outdoor location filming, different lighting effects? I'm sure lots of these are different territory than some stupid wasp stinger seeming like it's coming at your face.
But imagine if a proper movie was filmed in convincing 3D and you could experience it, either via headset or whatever new technology that is being improved upon, as something totally immersive. A movie from the perspective of a character in the movie, maybe? I think a lot of you are thinking in the present. And maybe that's what the thread is about. 3D is gimmicky right now but it's also getting better and better. Remember when "3D" meant red and blue glasses all the times? I had 3D comics and even an NES game (Rad Racer) and that shit was cool even though it made everything look so so wrong.
Only the big budget moneymaker films are utilizing 3D and it's all that 3D is suited for right now. But I can see that changing. I could see a famous director of the past like Stanley Kubrick getting into 3D if it was commonplace and coming up with something incredible.
I'm also interested with what kind of immersion 3D could create as it becomes more commonplace in PC gaming.
I also love Virtual Boy while everyone dismisses it as a red and black piece of crap that gives people headaches.
I'm not convinced. In my opinion, the thing that made those other examples innovations and not gimmicks was their widespread use and the fact that they propelled the medium forward while enhancing the narrative of a given movie. How does 3D propel the medium or enhance the narrative? I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying I've not heard a good argument.
As for the possibility of a movie that is totally immersive, I think that a good movie IS totally immersive. That's why you sit in the dark and don't talk. I don't feel a headset or a pair of glasses helps. In fact, I'd say it hinders. When I was watching Toy Story 3, I kept having to take the glasses off and rub the bridge of my nose because they were bothering me. Completely pulled me out of the experience. I'd rather watch a well made, well written, well acted movie than have to wear a bunch of gear just to get a slightly different experience.
As for the concept of watching a movie from the perspective of a character, well it's been done several times.
Enter the Void by Gaspar Noe is a good recent example, and
Dark Passage starring Humphrey Bogart is a good example from the early days (although it's only in first person for about half an hour). It can be done, and done well, to the point where the audience is truly immersed in the experience.
The fact is, 3D is probably not going to last, is so expensive that the only movies that can afford it have $300,000,000 budgets and shitty scripts, and is still not helping the fact that studios are hemorrhaging money faster than a drunk Saudi prince at Scores. Eventually they're going to have to recognize that their bottom line is suffering from buying brand new cameras at $15,000,000 a pop, and 3D will be stuck on a shelf again. Don't worry, they'll pull it out again soon.