Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams Sound Off on 3D

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams Sound Off on 3D

image

You might be surprised to learn that the two entertainment luminaries don't entirely hate the 3D trend that Hollywood is currently hot for.

Filming in 3D has been around for a long time, but Avatar made it work for relatively mainstream films instead of just horror and shlock. Some people hate the format, but Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams, arguably two of the most influential creative forces in the industry today with such credits as Firefly, Buffy, LOST, and Star Trek under their belts, think that 3D has a lot of potential, even if it doesn't work with every film.

"Honestly, I'm totally into [3D]. I love it," Whedon said during his panel with Abrams at San Diego Comic Con. "I really think that the technology is really good. It puts you into the space. It doesn't give me a big headache. I think that it's being done so much now that we're past the poke-things-at-the-screen era of 3D and it just adds a little something. There definitely are movies that shouldn't be in 3D, say like Cabin in the Woods..." Whedon is referring to the horror film that he produced, directed by Drew Goddard, that has been slated to be transferred to 3D.

"That came about because [MGM] looked at the schedule and said, 'Oh my god, every horror movie is going to be 3D forever,'" Whedon said. "But Drew shot something very specifically, in a classical mode. He made it almost a little old-fashioned. So what we're hoping to do is be the only horror movie that's not in 3D so we can advertise, '2D! See things move across the screen! Cabin in the Woods is painterly!' It's going to revolutionize the industry."

"The thing with 3D is that everything gets dim," Abrams said, taking the more cautious approach. "It all feels a little grey and muted. I want to see the vibrant [colors], I want to see the movie. I get into it I adjust to it, but for me it always feels like those first five minutes feels less than the IMAX experience, which is my favorite kind of immersive experience. The 3D thing, I'm not totally on board with yet."

Is 3D just a fad or is it here to stay? "I have no idea," Abrams said. "My guess is that it will continue, the equipment will be there, the technology will improve. Not everything will be made in 3D but a lot will. I have no idea."

Abrams was clear about one thing. When asked whether his project with Steven Spielberg, Super 8, will be coming out in 3D he simply said, "No."

Permalink

The thing about 3D is that you loose a ton of image quality, animated movies don't have the quality that going to a big loss, but actually well filmed movies can totally be ruined by a conversion.

I care so little for 3D it's not even funny. Why are people acting like it's a big new and exciting thing? It's been around for a good long while and today it's still pretty far from mindblowing. Severely underwhelming, actually. Evolve the technology for another decade or two and THEN make a big deal about it.

I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

Really, the only reason it's making a resurgence is because they can now market it more mainstream due to the technology for 3D TVs.

I hate the idea of it, simply due to the fact that it really DOESN'T immerse me any more into the movie. And because you can really only do it for SOME scenes. It's not amazing, and I actually am horribly underwhelmed by it.

The only thing I like about it, is the fact that I can get NORMAL 2D TVs cheaper because of it. Stupid 3D bullshit's useful for something. I'm just afraid that it'll become so mainstream that I'll NEED a 3D TV for the next generation of consoles.

Flying-Emu:
Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

Actually, it makes perfect sense, really. Some movies do look better in 3D, but like he said, not all.

FieryTrainwreck:
I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

Please, don't suck me into that AU again.

Till they make Pseudo 3d that doesn't give me eye strain, and headaches I wont buy into it.
I've yet to see a film in Pseudo 3d that I was able to sit through that benefited from being 3d *including avatar*

we just got HD so I could see the mole mark on extra number 845 in the background, the vary nature of making this stuff 3d is by making stuff look like its in the background so stuff in the foreground has more prominence...therefor stuff in the background is hazy just like if you were to look at something in real life...So whats the point of HD if all that clarity is now lost?

but beyond that my problem is the physical problems I have with it, and others do as well.

hell lets not forget when Movie studios make 3d movies in mind, thus adding useless at you scenes, and changing the nature of the movie and script for 3d in mind.

Flying-Emu:
Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

IF WHEDON MAKES IT, IT WILL BE GOOD IN ALL DIMENSIONS, INCLUDING 4D AND 6D.

Honestly though, I think Whedon has proven that he's the only person that can make certain things work. My running theory is that he was actually a mutant genius turned inside out so that everything happens to him backwards: his best show gets canceled, his least good show gets a second shot, and a low-budget short film is, for the first time in history, completely awesome on it's own merits instead of for how bad it is.

While all the other directors are trying to get to the finish line, Whedon's doing a freestyle waltz on the ceiling, and he still manages to be more captivating than the rest.

After burning myself to several 3D movies that always were too dimmed and missed out on alot of colour, I am tired of this 'revolution'.

Avatar is worth my buck though. I want movies like that or IMAX 3D. That's worth your buck.

I still dont like it...I cant see it, or use it so what point is there to it...Yes, I know we had colour blind people, who, cannot see things when colour came around...but, that didnt effect me.

This does, so...yeah, </3 3D

FieryTrainwreck:
I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

This is win. I pretty much agree with Abrams, Imax is a far more immersive experience and comparing Avatar in 3d to Imax is no competition.

Oh and if 3d really is going ot be the future of films (which it isn't) then they have to stop fucking charging us more for it! An extra couple of quid for some crappy glasses made most likey in a 3rd world company for tupence? NO!

Then permit me to disagree with you, Mr. Whedon, because to me, 3D is a gimmick and a crutch. It's a gimmick to sell tickets at higher prices and it's a crutch for bad movies to sucker in unsuspecting fools with the promise of stunning visuals. I hate to keep using it as an example, but look at how Avatar did their 3D. That is an example of good use of 3D. As for things that aren't Avatar, well, look at 90% of modern movies with 3D.

"that has been slated to be transferred to 3D"

Oh gawd 2D-into-3D. This ought to be good... -_-

So it looks the two big shots of sci-fi are split on this one, but let's not kid ourselves; 3D isn't going anywhere. As much as 3D may be a gimmick, it's making a bunch of money right now.

Personally, I'm excited to see some more films be created in 3D, like, you know, *that movie*. 2D-into-3D conversions don't seem to work, but *that movie* has taught us a lesson, methinks.

Still a cheap, useless gimmick. Still won't fork over 3-4 extra dollars for a ticket.

They're both completely crap directors, so why exactly should I care what they think? A soap opera with vampires? A soap opera with invisible forces on an island that turned out to be a dream? A revamp of a series that's been around for 50 years? Real creativity there folks. There's nothing wrong with a normal movie, in a standard aspect ratio. Come and See on a regular TV will beat Avatar in 3D any day, because it actually has a soul. A movie based on an event that actually happened, with real actors, recreating real events, with live ammunition being fired, and no 3D computer generated images trying to push an agenda? That's ridiculous.

Nope, can't get on board with 3D. Mainly because it makes me nauseous. Plus having a fucked up left eye kind of ruins the whole thing as well. So my left eye doesn't see what its supposed to, and the movie just makes me sick instead of blows my mind.

Don't care either way, because if your movie isn't good, it doesn't matter how much crap your throwing through the screen at me, if its not good I don't give a damn and will not watch it.

Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Towowo2:
Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Ok, how about "IT'S NOT REAL 3D"? All it is is an optical illusion that provides no actual depth, the image is the same no matter the viewing angle, and I get the privilege of paying $3 more for no goddamn reason.

Oh, and "It gives me a headache" is a perfectly valid argument as that is a sign your eyes are being fucked up.

Towowo2:
Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Because its been done before.
image
It comes around every decade or so, people claim it'll be the Next Big Thing, then it dies and everyone forgets it again.

Also, "Gives me a headache" is a valid reason if a large part of the population get the eye strain from it - "Only poorly made 3D visuals do that" is only valid if Hollywood actually knows what the hell it's doing.

Edit: Also, have they worked out a way for me to use 3D yet? I wear glasses normally, and as far as I'm aware, the 3D glasses won't slot over them in any workable way.

If

Doug:

Towowo2:
Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Because its been done before.

It comes around every decade or so, people claim it'll be the Next Big Thing, then it dies and everyone forgets it again.

Also, "Gives me a headache" is a valid reason if a large part of the population get the eye strain from it - "Only poorly made 3D visuals do that" is only valid if Hollywood actually knows what the hell it's doing.

Edit: Also, have they worked out a way for me to use 3D yet? I wear glasses normally, and as far as I'm aware, the 3D glasses won't slot over them in any workable way.

I also use glasses, Personally I don't believe 3D will take off fully unless they can produce the 3D visuals without the awkward glasses.

The arguements people regularly use agaisnt it aren't really saying why 3D is a bad idea. But rather the after effects of 3D. No one has made a valid argument why 3D is a bad idea. Depending on if it truly takes off or not is another matter. Of course 3DTV's are going to be expensive it's the nature of new technology. HDTV's were really expensive when they first hit the consumer market.

People said the same thing about the Wii. Give it time and it'll be just as much of a fad as the Wii.

To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

fullbleed:

FieryTrainwreck:
I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

This is win. I pretty much agree with Abrams, Imax is a far more immersive experience and comparing Avatar in 3d to Imax is no competition.

Oh and if 3d really is going ot be the future of films (which it isn't) then they have to stop fucking charging us more for it! An extra couple of quid for some crappy glasses made most likey in a 3rd world company for tupence? NO!

Are you saying IMAX 3D is impossible?
Point is, I love 3D and I think they both make good points.
If everything was in 3D, it'd be stupid.
But certain things just work.
Right now, anything animated works.
Once directors figure out how to use the technology, other forms of film will too.
Its new right now (Real 3D is worlds apart from the old red-blue).
And, btw, whining about the glasses is stupid, they charge more because it takes more money to film and because movie pirating is causing a lot of strain on movie theaters so they need a gimmick to charge more (read MovieBob's article Why Movies Suck Now:Part Two).
Its the same thing that is upping the price of PC games.

Seriously, the anti-3D crowd just come off as a bunch of Luddites.
It's actually kind of sad.

Towowo2:

The arguements people regularly use agaisnt it aren't really saying why 3D is a bad idea. But rather the after effects of 3D. No one has made a valid argument why 3D is a bad idea. Depending on if it truly takes off or not is another matter. Of course 3DTV's are going to be expensive it's the nature of new technology. HDTV's were really expensive when they first hit the consumer market.

Ahhhh, thats a different question - when people say "3D films are rubbish/its a bad idea/etc", they of course mean the current technology 3D. Personally, I think a 3D technology based on holography in the future would be the ultimate film projection technology.

Soylent Bacon:
To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

No, but the movie experience is more annoying than how it would have been had the movie not been shot with 3D in mind.

To elaborate, when filming a movie that's going to be in 3D, you want lots of shots where stuff flies into the camera to show of your 3D stuff. If you don't, then the 3D starts feeling kinda pointless and boring.

Which means that directors put in tons of those scenes in their films, which is cool for the 3D audience, but for us only wanting 2D, we get annoyed at scenes like that, partly because they feel cheap and could be replaced with much better action, and partly because they do it so many times.

Just look at the trailer for Resident Evil: Afterlife

Shurikens, airplanes, swords, glasses, all just in the trailer are thrown with the unmistakable purpose of "3D-ing" them.

Hubilub:

Soylent Bacon:
To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

No, but the movie experience is more annoying than how it would have been had the movie not been shot with 3D in mind.

To elaborate, when filming a movie that's going to be in 3D, you want lots of shots where stuff flies into the camera to show of your 3D stuff. If you don't, then the 3D starts feeling kinda pointless and boring.

Which means that directors put in tons of those scenes in their films, which is cool for the 3D audience, but for us only wanting 2D, we get annoyed at scenes like that, partly because they feel cheap and could be replaced with much better action, and partly because they do it so many times.

Just look at the trailer for Resident Evil: Afterlife

Shurikens, airplanes, swords, glasses, all just in the trailer are thrown with the unmistakable purpose of "3D-ing" them.

But see, these are bad movies. A good director isn't going to change their movie for these kinds of shots. Action scenes can still be fun with cool-looking 3D objects flying around, even if there aren't any scenes where some object flies towards you.

Soylent Bacon:

Hubilub:

Soylent Bacon:
To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

No, but the movie experience is more annoying than how it would have been had the movie not been shot with 3D in mind.

To elaborate, when filming a movie that's going to be in 3D, you want lots of shots where stuff flies into the camera to show of your 3D stuff. If you don't, then the 3D starts feeling kinda pointless and boring.

Which means that directors put in tons of those scenes in their films, which is cool for the 3D audience, but for us only wanting 2D, we get annoyed at scenes like that, partly because they feel cheap and could be replaced with much better action, and partly because they do it so many times.

Just look at the trailer for Resident Evil: Afterlife

Shurikens, airplanes, swords, glasses, all just in the trailer are thrown with the unmistakable purpose of "3D-ing" them.

But see, these are bad movies. A good director isn't going to change their movie for these kinds of shots. Action scenes can still be fun with cool-looking 3D objects flying around, even if there aren't any scenes where some object flies towards you.

I don't doubt that there are directors who won't do so, but a good director is rare nowadays.

That means that for every good film with 3D effects that aren't overwhelming, there will be tons that do have that. It will be a gimmick more than it will be an important tool to use, and that is why I don't like it.

It's a bit like the Wii's motion controls. Not hating on the Wii or anything, but that console had more shovelware than the PS3, 360 and PC put together.

Some games for the PS3 threw in mandatory sixaxis movements simply because they could, even though they weren't useful.

And I am standing firm on the belief that the same thing will happen with movies.

I think that someday, maybe around fifty years from now, 2D displays will be looked on the same way we look on black and white now. It'll take time, but eventually they'll solve the headaches and the need for glasses. Then all they have to do is come up with a reasonable price and there simply won't be any reason not to use 3D.

That being said, I think some companies now *cough*sony*cough* are jumping on this thing a bit too early. It's not there yet, and a lot of people just got HDTVs. 3D going to be hard sell for the next five or so years even if they can perfect the technology, and I have my doubts about the necessary improvements happening that fast. I think this current bout of 3D is probably a fad, but the next one will likely be the real deal when it hits. If they improve the technology fast those two might run together though.

Wow, purveors of mindless drivel like mindles drivel?

The Buffy movie was orriginal, the first time. Serenity was so formulaic, it was cliche-by-numbers. Angel and the Buffy TV show were "Continuity? What's That?" Joss Wheedon knows good movies. That's where he copies half his stuff. The other half he copies frpm bad movies. Why in the name of sarcasm would you bring up the term "Good dirctor"? Wheedon's entire career is based on "Screw what makes sense, this would look cool!"

"Yes, 3D is awesome" *smile* *nod* *walks backstage for check*

HG131:

Flying-Emu:
Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

Actually, it makes perfect sense, really. Some movies do look better in 3D, but like he said, not all.

FieryTrainwreck:
I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

Please, don't suck me into that AU again.

Dude, I was being completely serious.

Whedon is the one director I can say that I trust fully. In terms of creative license, at least.

Flying-Emu:

HG131:

Flying-Emu:
Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

Actually, it makes perfect sense, really. Some movies do look better in 3D, but like he said, not all.

FieryTrainwreck:
I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

Please, don't suck me into that AU again.

Dude, I was being completely serious.

Whedon is the one director I can say that I trust fully. In terms of creative license, at least.

So was I.

HG131:
So was I.

I know :)

I just wanted to make sure you understood that I wasn't being a sarcastic ass.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here