Next Star Trek movie to be in 3-D?

[Nickswitz]

That was one of the things I liked best about Avatar. Not once in the whole movie did anybody throw anything out of the screen! Not a single "Hey look! It's 3-D!!!!" moment.

Yes, like while watching it I was wondering where was the spear or something going to be tossed out at the screen, but there weren't any awkwardly obvious 3-D moments, I loved it.

[Lt. Staplic]

Exactly I think that's the future of 3d movies and of movies in general. Now that we can move past the ooh ahh it's coming at me aspect, 3D has a very real possibility of increasing the 'reality' of the expierence.

[Mikey]

I tend to think that that's superfluous for a well-made movie.

[Lt. Staplic]

I tend to think that that's superfluous for a well-made movie.

I agree, it's not going to make a movie, but it can make a movie better.

[Reliant121]

I think to sum it up in a phrase of linguistic beauty, "In a movie, 3-D is an enhancement, and not a necessity."

[Sionnach Glic]

I tend to think that that's superfluous for a well-made movie.

You could say the same for colour.

[Mikey]

I tend to think that that's superfluous for a well-made movie.

You could say the same for colour.

I could, and I'd be correct. I'm not saying that if 3-D becomes as commonplace as color, it would be bad; I'm saying that the quality of a film has precious little to do with visual schtick such as 3-D (or color.) Was Citizen Kane or On the Waterfront any worse because they were B&W? Of course not. Likewise, I don't believe that Lawrence of Arabia or Zeffereli's Othello suffered for being 2-D.

[kostmayer]

But would Lawrence of Arabia been the same masterpiece had it been filmed in Black and White, or in 4:3 format instead of Widescreen?

I love old B&W films as much as anyone, but I doubt you could say, just remove all the colour from The Godfather and it still be the same film.

[Mikey]

But would Lawrence of Arabia been the same masterpiece had it been filmed in Black and White

Yes.

or in 4:3 format instead of Widescreen?

I don't get it. Lawrence of Arabia was never made for television.

I love old B&W films as much as anyone, but I doubt you could say, just remove all the colour from The Godfather and it still be the same film.

False analogy. A better one would be to take a B&W film and a colorized version, and ask if the color added anything. Would Marlon Brando's performance improve if The Wild One were colorized?

[Captain Seafort]

False analogy. A better one would be to take a B&W film and a colorized version, and ask if the color added anything. Would Marlon Brando's performance improve if The Wild One were colorized?

I think someone did that to Casablanca once, and the result, by all accounts, is utter shit.

[kostmayer]

Scenes in films are shot with a paticular aspect ratio, and a colour format (or black and white). The scene is created with all those things in mind. If Lawrence of Arabia was being filmed in Black and White in 4:3, then wouldn't the director have made different choices based on the fact.

Colourizing "On the Waterfront" might not have enhanced any performances, but if it was being filmed for colour then scenes may have been shot slightly differently - for better or worse.

Likewise, if a film is being created in 3D, there will be certain scenes that work better in 3D if filmed in a paticular way. I'm not just talking about gimicky shots such as things flying out of the screen, I mean the way the whole scene is set up. The fact that its possible to film an equally good film in 2D doesn't mean you would make the same film shot for shot.

[Mikey]

False analogy. A better one would be to take a B&W film and a colorized version, and ask if the color added anything. Would Marlon Brando's performance improve if The Wild One were colorized?

I think someone did that to Casablanca once, and the result, by all accounts, is utter s**t.

The accounts are correct.

Scenes in films are shot with a paticular aspect ratio, and a colour format (or black and white). The scene is created with all those things in mind. If Lawrence of Arabia was being filmed in Black and White in 4:3, then wouldn't the director have made different choices based on the fact.

Colourizing "On the Waterfront" might not have enhanced any performances, but if it was being filmed for colour then scenes may have been shot slightly differently - for better or worse.

Likewise, if a film is being created in 3D, there will be certain scenes that work better in 3D if filmed in a paticular way. I'm not just talking about gimicky shots such as things flying out of the screen, I mean the way the whole scene is set up. The fact that its possible to film an equally good film in 2D doesn't mean you would make the same film shot for shot.

I think this is circular. If the advantages of a particular format are being used correctly, the difference might be extant but should be invisible while watching. I.e., the use of 3-D in Avatar doesn't (by all accounts) bring attention to itself. What I'm saying is not that Avatar shouldn't have beeen filmed in 3-D - rather, I'm saying that the presence of 3-D doesn't affect its quality as a film compared to older/non-3-D moivies.

[Tsukiyumi]

Considering that I have astigmatism in both eyes, I rather hope that 3-D doesn't become the norm for filmmaking.

[Reliant121]

I think that will be a long time yet. 3D films are all fine and dandy for cinemas, where the right and left eye viewframes are seperately projected onto the screen. However, home 3D systems use a completely different system, requiring a much more expensive 3D image transmitter of some form, and specially programmed glasses (AFAIK). It will be a long time before they are affordable for home use.

[Sionnach Glic]

I tend to think that that's superfluous for a well-made movie.

You could say the same for colour.

I could, and I'd be correct. I'm not saying that if 3-D becomes as commonplace as color, it would be bad; I'm saying that the quality of a film has precious little to do with visual schtick such as 3-D (or color.) Was Citizen Kane or On the Waterfront any worse because they were B&W? Of course not. Likewise, I don't believe that Lawrence of Arabia or Zeffereli's Othello suffered for being 2-D.

Oh, I wasn't trying to shoot down your point. I was trying to add to it.