Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After a night out with the Missus and some friends,part of which was spent watching the new "Resident Evil-3D film", (save your money BTW),I begin thinking,will/is the current trend in film makers producing 3D films leading to even more vapid,effects driven,zero plot or character development films ?

Now,clearly the whole point of a 3D film is the fact it's in 3D,thus meaning " eye popping visuals" are the focus,but honestly,isn't it bad enough that alot of films which are not shot in 3D format have become little more than "Boom Bang Pow" fest, must a format now come into play that almost certainly assures that the film will exist solely for that purpose?

I'm torn to a certain extent, as I could see where the application of 3D effects could perhaps enhance a films entertainment value and even enhance the overall storytelling.

Perhaps I'm being far to critical,as the 3D format exist primarily for action/fantasy genre,but I can't help but wonder if a medium focusing solely on visual effects won't affect the overall quality of film making as more producers rush to cash in on the trend.

Thoughts?

I really dislike 3D because it feels like the whole scene is tailored just for some character to go slo-mo and throw something towards the screen.

Its so lame -_-...

LunaHound wrote:I really dislike 3D because it feels like the whole scene is tailored just for some character to go slo-mo and throw something towards the screen.

Its so lame -_-...

Yes, the feelings that the scenes are simply staged for the effect is part of what I'm on about.

For example,in the Resident Evil film we watched last night,there were over a dozen ridiculously unnecessary scenes that were obviously there only for the "wow the bullet came right at me." effect,again horror/action so while it is understandable...why take the easy route???

Particularly in the horror genre 3D effects could add alot to the overall "vibe" of the film, "Quarantine in 3D" could have been very intense.

But it does indeed seem the 3D format is less of a tool of film making and more of a gimmick.

When were the Resident Evil movies ever good?

IMO this is some what similar to the "Games, They arent made like they used to" thread.

I shall say the same here as i did there. Apart from the comparing stuff.

Its a trade off of quantity over quality. More companies want the nice piece of green paper quickly, so they cut corners to get it quicker.

I myself am not a movie person so cannot say as much i did on the above mention thread.

Note: Please swap "green paper" to whatever currency that particular company deals with. I am not singleing out American film companies.

Laughing Man wrote:When were the Resident Evil movies ever good?

Never.

I'm simply saying that the current instalment was worse than all the rest,and it seems basically due to it's introduction of the 3D format.

Absolutely zero attention was paid to any sort of "story" and the film was simply an excuse for the effects.

What concerns me is this seems to be a growing trend in film making,yet another excuse to ignore story and focus on effects..if you follow my rant.

I liked the first one.

If you went to a resident evil moving looking for plot then I don't think that you really have the right facilities to judge what does and does not have one. Every resident evil movie was vapid, commercialized, poorly acted, plot hole ridden gak. They started at a low point and somehow got worse with every new installment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnscott10 wrote:IMO this is some what similar to the "Games, They arent made like they used to" thread.

I shall say the same here as i did there. Apart from the comparing stuff.

Its a trade off of quantity over quality. More companies want the nice piece of green paper quickly, so they cut corners to get it quicker.

I myself am not a movie person so cannot say as much i did on the above mention thread.

Note: Please swap "green paper" to whatever currency that particular company deals with. I am not singleing out American film companies.

3d movies take longer and are more expensive to make then 2d ones.

ShumaGorath wrote:If you went to a resident evil moving looking for plot then I don't think that you really have the right facilities to judge what does and does not have one. Every resident evil movie was vapid, commercialized, poorly acted, plot hole ridden gak. They started at a low point and somehow got worse with every new installment..

As I stated, I don't think any of the Resident Evil films are particularly good,I was simply pointing out that the introduction of a "new" filming technique seemed to make the film makers cease even the most transparent attempts at plotting.

ShumaGorath wrote:If you went to a resident evil moving looking for plot then I don't think that you really have the right facilities to judge what does and does not have one. Every resident evil movie was vapid, commercialized, poorly acted, plot hole ridden gak. They started at a low point and somehow got worse with every new installment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnscott10 wrote:IMO this is some what similar to the "Games, They arent made like they used to" thread.

I shall say the same here as i did there. Apart from the comparing stuff.

Its a trade off of quantity over quality. More companies want the nice piece of green paper quickly, so they cut corners to get it quicker.

I myself am not a movie person so cannot say as much i did on the above mention thread.

Note: Please swap "green paper" to whatever currency that particular company deals with. I am not singleing out American film companies.

3d movies take longer and are more expensive to make then 2d ones.

That is true, which makes it more evident for companies to cut corners to try save money.

johnscott10 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:If you went to a resident evil moving looking for plot then I don't think that you really have the right facilities to judge what does and does not have one. Every resident evil movie was vapid, commercialized, poorly acted, plot hole ridden gak. They started at a low point and somehow got worse with every new installment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnscott10 wrote:IMO this is some what similar to the "Games, They arent made like they used to" thread.

I shall say the same here as i did there. Apart from the comparing stuff.

Its a trade off of quantity over quality. More companies want the nice piece of green paper quickly, so they cut corners to get it quicker.

I myself am not a movie person so cannot say as much i did on the above mention thread.

Note: Please swap "green paper" to whatever currency that particular company deals with. I am not singleing out American film companies.

3d movies take longer and are more expensive to make then 2d ones.

That is true, which makes it more evident for companies to cut corners to try save money.

Writing is by far the cheapest aspect of any hollywood production. It could be cut completely and the bottom line would not be affected in any way. You are confusing cost for effect, 3d movies encourage a more visceral and less cerebral movie experience and the writing and filmography is dictated by the format. Studios don't cost cut in response to the decision to film or fake 3d, but 3d movies are designed to give a different experience. Can you name a 3d movie that would have been better if it were in 2d? Most are gakky action movies of kids films which would have been every bit as bad without the extra D.

When there was radio the words had to be so good that they would create pictures in your head. When black and white TV came along there was generally the same good writing enhanced by visuals. Time passed, TV become more about the visuals than anything else. Watch some old Twilight Zones (especially any about war) and you'll see what I mean.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:When there was radio the words had to be so good that they would create pictures in your head. When black and white TV came along there was generally the same good writing enhanced by visuals. Time passed, TV become more about the visuals than anything else. Watch some old Twilight Zones (especially any about war) and you'll see what I mean.

Umm. No. Go watch Amos and Andy or the old fashioned variety shows. TV was just as much a vapid spectacle when it was new as it is now, moreso really since all it was was spectacle. It took a long time to drift away from the variety shows and leave it to beaver famcoms which are every bit as empty as any reality show that's currently dragging the population down. The heyday of telivision was likely in the 90's if you can ignore the sitcom boom. Science shows were somewhat sciency, the news hadn't gone yellow but was highly varied, the content of episodic series was more finely tuned and point driven (TNG vs lost to compare two wildly popular shows) and in general it was a much less exploitative time. Even the cartoons hit their peak in the early nineties with shows like Rocko, Aeon Flux, and a few others.

I know every time period will have their crap and their good stuff, but I can honestly say I haven't seen much of anything that makes me really want to scratch my head or be inspired in the last 10 years on TV. Some older shows I've seen are amazing. Maybe it's just a case of "the good ol' days" or maybe the crap has sunk to the bottom, but it's the impression I get.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:When there was radio the words had to be so good that they would create pictures in your head. When black and white TV came along there was generally the same good writing enhanced by visuals. Time passed, TV become more about the visuals than anything else. Watch some old Twilight Zones (especially any about war) and you'll see what I mean.

this is very true. I think that color TV was called a gimmick for quite some time back in the day.

old black and white Twilight Zone and outer limits are the cat's pajamas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not a fan of 3D unless it's something educational shown on an IMAX, back in the day when there were only 2 or 3 IMAXs in the country, and they were located in places like the Pacific Science Center in seattle...

Into the Deep 3d was awesome.

Hollywood 3d gives me a massive headache.

Like all tools they have to be utilized properly which in a b-movie sequel like Resident Evi: Afterlife thats probably not going to happen; although imo b-movies still have that guilty pleasure appeal about 'em - see Rifftrax and Mystery Science Theater 3k. You're definitely not looking for a good story or plot in a mindless zombie video game sequel...or shouldn't be anyway. Just be glad that you have a lady thats willing to sit through gorefests that also features eye candy named Milla Jovovich and Ali Larter!

Of the 3D movies I've seen the only one that was worthwhile was Avatar which was designed for and took 3D tech to higher levels than before. It'll be interesting to see if Ridley Scott can top that experience for his 3D Alien prequels. However for most movies 3D seems like an afterthought; a marketing gimmick as its one of the few selling points that the overpriced movie theater experience offers over most home theaters.

we are going to have 3D rom coms, soon....just watch.

Notting Hill 2! IN STUNNING 3D!

3d should have stayed at amusment parks. I saw avatar in 3d a day after i saw it in regular. saw NO differrence.

garret wrote:3d should have stayed at amusment parks. I saw avatar in 3d a day after i saw it in regular. saw NO differrence.

I saw it in "3D" and as I expected its the same as 2D as yous post says.

The only small part that had a 3D effect was when a small butterfly looked as if it was flying towards me, that was it. I bet it was actually shown as 2D but had 3D written all over it just to create hype for it.

Was a decent film imo, but only reason I seen it was due to my gf saying it was good.

Now an upcoming film called Suckerpunch, released next year, would be amazing if the 3D effect was taken to the right in your face aspect.

But yes currently 3D movies shouldnt be released unless there is a decent story/plot and aslong as it used to a decent degree.

johnscott10 wrote:

garret wrote:3d should have stayed at amusment parks. I saw avatar in 3d a day after i saw it in regular. saw NO differrence.

I saw it in "3D" and as I expected its the same as 2D as yous post says.

The only small part that had a 3D effect was when a small butterfly looked as if it was flying towards me, that was it. I bet it was actually shown as 2D but had 3D written all over it just to create hype for it.

Was a decent film imo, but only reason I seen it was due to my gf saying it was good.

Now an upcoming film called Suckerpunch, released next year, would be amazing if the 3D effect was taken to the right in your face aspect.

But yes currently 3D movies shouldnt be released unless there is a decent story/plot and aslong as it used to a decent degree.

Why? It's a technical effect. Thats like saying CG or big explosions shouldn't be used without a decent plot and story. That cuts out nine in ten action films.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Why? It's a technical effect. Thats like saying CG or big explosions shouldn't be used without a decent plot and story. That cuts out nine in ten action films.

I get where you're coming from. I think people are assuming that 3d = crappier story automatically as it has kind of proven itself lately. That doesn't necessarily mean not 3d = better story though :/

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Why? It's a technical effect. Thats like saying CG or big explosions shouldn't be used without a decent plot and story. That cuts out nine in ten action films.

I get where you're coming from. I think people are assuming that 3d = crappier story automatically as it has kind of proven itself lately. That doesn't necessarily mean not 3d = better story though :/

Thats because 3d isn't story. Story is story. 3d is a visual effect. Explosions aren't story, nor are beautiful actors or thoughtful camera placement or good lighting. People said this exact thing as CG came into vogue, movies have always been about entertainment first and artistic statements second. The medium will eventually settle and once all movies are 3d people will once again start skipping the bad 3d movies and attending the good ones.

Then again vampires suck was the number one film when it debuted, so it's pretty clear that the public at large loves gakky movies anyway. Could it just be that people blame 3d when their own not-so-discerning tastes are truly to blame?

ShumaGorath wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

garret wrote:3d should have stayed at amusment parks. I saw avatar in 3d a day after i saw it in regular. saw NO differrence.

I saw it in "3D" and as I expected its the same as 2D as yous post says.

The only small part that had a 3D effect was when a small butterfly looked as if it was flying towards me, that was it. I bet it was actually shown as 2D but had 3D written all over it just to create hype for it.

Was a decent film imo, but only reason I seen it was due to my gf saying it was good.

Now an upcoming film called Suckerpunch, released next year, would be amazing if the 3D effect was taken to the right in your face aspect.

But yes currently 3D movies shouldnt be released unless there is a decent story/plot and aslong as it used to a decent degree.

Why? It's a technical effect. Thats like saying CG or big explosions shouldn't be used without a decent plot and story. That cuts out nine in ten action films.

Ah but you see Cg and explosions help enhance the story. 3D has no effect on the story watsoever in my opinion. If a movies story is complete gak then adding in 3D isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story 3D wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory. And thats what some companies are goin towards... Take Avatar, Cg and such was really well done, but the story was mediocre. Did seeing it in 3D make it better?? I doubt it.

You could also argue that bad movies are created to accommodate:

1. Licensed material
2. Star power
3. Sequels

After investing all kinds of money into any of these things, it's simply better for them to
push forward with the project rather than scrap the material and try again.

Ah but you see Cg and explosions help enhance the story.

Go watch machete and tell me that.

3D has no effect on the story watsoever in my opinion.

Where do explosions have a palpable effect on the story? A story can be about the third dimension just as much as it can be about an explosion.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in 3D isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story 3D wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in color isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story color wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in music isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story music wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

Pointing out flaws in your way of thinking. Books don't have sound, color, or 3d, yet they tell a story. 3d is a technical effect designed theoretically to create immersion, not improve the story. They aren't causally related.

And thats what some companies are goin towards... Take Avatar, Cg and such was really well done, but the story was mediocre. Did seeing it in 3D make it better?? I doubt it.

The popularity and rates of return views disagrees very, very, very strongly with you. Especially when you compare return views between 3d and non 3d showings.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ah but you see Cg and explosions help enhance the story.

Go watch machete and tell me that.

3D has no effect on the story watsoever in my opinion.

Where do explosions have a palpable effect on the story? A story can be about the third dimension just as much as it can be about an explosion.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in 3D isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story 3D wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in color isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story color wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

If a movies story is complete gak then adding in music isnt goin to help it, likewise with having a good story music wont make the story storm into the "OMG the story was awesome" catagory.

Pointing out flaws in your way of thinking. Books don't have sound, color, or 3d, yet they tell a story. 3d is a technical effect designed theoretically to create immersion, not improve the story. They aren't causally related.

And thats what some companies are goin towards... Take Avatar, Cg and such was really well done, but the story was mediocre. Did seeing it in 3D make it better?? I doubt it.

The popularity and rates of return views disagrees very, very, very strongly with you. Especially when you compare return views between 3d and non 3d showings.

Ok to take ur last comment, yes people will disagree as indeed you are.

Ok in responce to the no colour& music, yes there will be movies that have excelent stories without these. They add to the immersion factor which is not what this thread is about.

In responce to

Where do explosions have a palpable effect on the story

comment, then explain how the story of a nuclear bomb going off is done without using special effects.

For example a lusious green feild, the camera jumps to view where a nuclear bomb goes off then jumps back to view the now barren dirt feild... people will start to wonder what the hell just happened. But with the CG of the bomb goin off they will know that the explosion of the bomb caused the grass to burn and die.

Or how about this example, infiltrating a base, planting a bomb and expecting to see the base blow up. Cant create that effect without using some form of special effect.

comment, then explain how the story of a nuclear bomb going off is done without using special effects.

How do you convey the concepts of love without being in it? How do you convey the concept of death without showing a character being killed? There are plenty of ways to convey the idea of a nuke going off without special effects, that's what writers are for.

For example a lusious green feild, the camera jumps to view where a nuclear bomb goes off then jumps back to view the now barren dirt feild... people will start to wonder what the hell just happened. But with the CG of the bomb goin off they will know that the explosion of the bomb caused the grass to burn and die.

A dude could walk on screen and say "this green field hasn't been the same since that nuclear bomb went off".

Or how about this example, infiltrating a base, planting a bomb and expecting to see the base blow up. Cant create that effect without using some form of special effect.

Why does the explosion enhance the story? I'll return to a previous point, you can read about an explosion in a book, but you can't see it. Does that harm the story? Most people would consider books to convey better stories then movies often specifically because they lack for immersive special effects, relying on their stories entirely.

comment, then explain how the story of a nuclear bomb going off is done without using special effects.

Ahem. Go watch Fail-Safe. No special effects in pretty much the entire movie, yet the story revolves around the nuclear bombing of Moscow and New York.

ShumaGorath wrote:Why does the explosion enhance the story? I'll return to a previous point, you can read about an explosion in a book, but you can't see it. Does that harm the story? Most people would consider books to convey better stories then movies often specifically because they lack for immersive special effects, relying on their stories entirely.

I dont see as to how a book fits into this argument, as a movie and book are two different media. With a book you have a bunch of words that you have to visualise what is going on. With movies its different all of the images are already created. And no it doesnt harm the story as said the reader makes up their own image. I myself would say that books convey better stories than movies.

Pretty much my point is, if the movie doesnt have a decent story/plot to begin with it should have all these special effects unless its crucial to the story.

Yes alot of people will disagree with me, but hey their opinion is as valid as mine.

And I am leaving it at that

I dont see as to how a book fits into this argument, as a movie and book are two different media.

True, but that doesn't mean that they are to be considered separately.

With a book you have a bunch of words that you have to visualise what is going on. With movies its different all of the images are already created. And no it doesnt harm the story as said the reader makes up their own image.

Visualization is not story. Thats what I've been saying in every post so far. Greater immersion and visualization does not inherently improve story and an explosion is an element of presentation as much as anything else in a movie. The story can take it or leave it. It can hurt or enhance. It has no natural inclination either way. The same can be said for 3d.

Pretty much my point is, if the movie doesnt have a decent story/plot to begin with it should have all these special effects unless its crucial to the story.

It should or shouldn't? You were saying they shouldn't before.

Yes alot of people will disagree with me, but hey their opinion is as valid as mine.

And I am leaving it at that

Not all opinions are equal.