What's the future of filmmaking in the 21st century?

Found this interesting piece on a pretty mediocre news site:

http://nytimes.com/culture/page/1...2/0121006.html

Even 115 years later, audiences in 3D and IMAX theaters are still gasping "wow," "whoa," and "ah" every single time some object or character jumps toward them from the screen. Apparently, that’s the biggest selling point of modern movies.

A step backward.

We haven't really moved forward from those first movie screenings, have we? People aren't running out of theaters fearing for their lives anymore, but in 2011, the obsession is still centered on technical gimmicks rather than actual storytelling. Progress isn't always a straight line, clearly. 3D tech has become the most significant invention of a Hollywood industry that's somehow regressed from the 21st century back to the 19th.

For Hollywood, sound wasn't enough. Color wasn't enough. Even turning film into one of the world's most dominant art forms wasn't enough. Driven by nothing but pure profit, they started panicking in the 90s, hunting for some shiny new gimmick to "elevate" cinema and give it a "21st-century face."

They thought VR might be the answer, but they quickly realized 3D was the money maker—something Hollywood actually dabbled in back in the 50s. They just needed to make the 3D effect feel more "real," which is easier to do now with today's tech than it was sixty years ago.

The sense of depth is way better now, sure, but is it any more realistic? Not really. The CGI layers are flashier, but they still look just as flat and fake. And don't even get me started on how much of a headache 3D is to actually watch. Even with "Avatar"—which is technically the gold standard here—people were struggling just to balance the image and the subtitles. It gave half the audience nausea.

Early experiences at US IMAX theaters should serve as a wake-up call for technicians. Once you find that one specific spot where the subtitles don't double up, you can't move an inch. Move your head slightly and the text multiplies and the image blurs. Great.

And what about the actual movies? Look at what's playing right now: it's all kid stuff or mindless spectacles like the latest "Thor."

Artistic 3D.

It took twenty years for film to truly become an art form (think German Expressionism in the 1920s). Sure, there will come a time when artistic expression becomes a core part of 3D technology, but can we please wrap up this "experimental" phase? We're all just guinea pigs in a massive test to prove something is "cool" when it clearly isn't. At least they're pouring money into the tech itself, even if the tech is mostly just impressing itself.

What do you guys think? Is the author hitting the nail on the head? Are we stuck with another decade or two of brainless movies where the only point is the 3D?

It’s rare to find an article actually worth reading on this site. But, against all odds, this one hits the mark. As Michael Bay said, 3-D is just a gimmick. Whether you dig his style or not, the man isn't wrong.

When even Michael Bay is trashing tech that looks like it could deliver explosions we've never seen on screen before, you know things are going south 😁

http://www.cracked.com/article_18877...e-to-suck.html

Sure, it’s from >, but there's a solid point being made here: 3D doesn't inherently have to be nothing more than a cheap gimmick. It all comes down to whether you put the technology in the hands of people who actually know how to use it. To wrap things up, here's a pretty insightful quote from the end of the piece:

"To this day, movies don't have to have color to be great,but once given the tool, great film makers make amazing use of it.
3D will be no different. Sometimes, you may even get that rare gem that uses both."

rustywalker42 said:Found this interesting little piece floating around on some random corner of Yahoo News:

What’s everyone thinking about this? Do you think the author hit the nail on the head, or am I just being a cynic? Are we looking at a decade or two where movies are basically just hollow shells designed solely to sell us on 3D gimmicks...

Hmm, looks like the author might be Arsen Oremovic and the original probably ran in the New York Post. Either way, it's a solid read, and honestly, I'm right there with him on every single point...🙂

A tech media outlet trashing technological progress? Now that’s interesting... talk about a textbook definition of irony 🙂

rustywalker42 said:I stumbled upon this interesting piece over on a pretty mediocre site, CNN:

What’s the consensus here? Do you think the author hit the nail on the head? Are we looking at a decade—maybe two—of mindless movies where the only real selling point is the 3D gimmick?

YES.
3D and IMAX aren't innovations—they're just carnival attractions.

3D only works if something is flying straight at your face, or maybe if the camera is swirling around something—but even then, it feels forced. If the scene is static, what's the actual point of the 3D?
Movies made specifically for IMAX and 3D theaters are going to lean entirely into being "spectacles" and "experiences."
When you combine that mindset with how the big Hollywood studios treat movies—basically treating them as products that need mass appeal at any cost—you end up with cheap thrills. We're talking about sensory overload filled with flashy scenes, explosions, and deafening noise, all designed to be forgotten the second the next big thing rolls around.

If they had actually focused on virtual reality, cinema would be in a completely different place right now.

rustywalker42 said:I happened upon an interesting article on a rather uninspired news site:

http://nytimes.com/culture/article/123456789

What are your thoughts? Do you think the author makes a valid point? Are we facing a decade or two of mediocre films where the only real substance is the 3D effect?

Look, when discussing cinema, I suppose one must distinguish between movies designed purely for entertainment and those intended to hold actual artistic value. You rarely find films with genuine artistic merit in our local multiplexes. Regarding 3D technology itself, it seems quite sound in theory, as it could potentially make films more realistic and visually spectacular—which doesn't necessarily imply the stories themselves will suffer. However, the issue with 3D might be its impact on physical comfort; it isn't entirely natural for the human eye to process two separate images that only merge within the brain. Honestly, watching a movie becomes quite a chore if you are constantly battling nausea. On the other hand, 3D has become such a convenient tool for Hollywood to serve up visual spectacles, even if they are truly subpar films, regardless of whether they aim to entertain. To put it more simply, Billy Bob Thornton once remarked that movies are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from video games. Unfortunately, I suspect he is right.

I think I totally agree with the author here; they really hit the nail on the head. It feels like movie theaters have lost that balance between serious dramas and fun blockbusters, leaving us with nothing but mindless movies that don't even meet the usual standards for their genre. I guess I’m right there with everyone else hoping this phase passes as quickly as possible!

We’re heading straight toward a future filled with nothing but endless remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, comic book adaptations, and all that other garbage.

Ronald Cox96 said:It's all heading toward remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, comic book adaptations, and all that other nonsense.

Essentially, there isn't anything truly new here, and I suppose it isn't necessarily bad if it's executed properly, though most of the time it isn't. My personal take is that 3D will probably be forced upon us for a while, but eventually, people will just get tired of it. I tend to believe that everything will eventually circle back to focusing on a solid story and tension, whereas 3D—perhaps due to its inherent lack of flexibility—will end up being nothing more than a passing fad.
Because, I guess, if a filmmaker starts making a movie with the sole intention of relying on 3D from the jump, then it’s probably doomed to fail. Everything becomes subservient to the 3D effect, and in certain scenes, they might overdo the depth, which I feel creates a counterproductive result. In my view, it's just a temporary trend.

mistyotter35 said:Essentially, this isn't anything groundbreaking. It might work if executed perfectly, but that rarely happens. I suspect we’ll see a period where 3D is heavily pushed by studios, but eventually, there will be a sense of fatigue. I believe things will gravitate back toward solid storytelling and tension, while 3D—largely due to its inherent lack of flexibility—will end up being nothing more than a passing fad.
In my view, if a director starts a project with the sole intention of making it 3D, the film is likely doomed from the start. Everything becomes subservient to the 3D gimmick, often leading to excessive depth in certain scenes that actually produces a counterproductive effect. To me, it seems temporary.

I agree with you, though I suspect 3D won't fade away quite so quickly, simply because it remains one of the few primary hooks used to entice people into American movie theaters right now.

Movies are gonna be in 3D about 99% of the time, honestly. Why? Because anyone can just grab everything else from a torrent site in like ten minutes.

It’s like what Rebecca Ramos was saying—3D has become this massive deciding factor for why people bother heading to the theater instead of just downloading movies at home. Sure, there are exceptions, but these days, fewer and fewer people are willing to sit in a cinema for a serious drama or an indie flick. Honestly, those kinds of films are becoming rare in these big multiplexes anyway. So, theaters are desperate for something to actually pull an audience in, and right now, that "something" is 3D. As for the tech itself? I don't have a problem with it. There are some great movies that look incredible in 3D, and then there’s the absolute garbage. But let’s be real, there was plenty of garbage before 3D ever existed.

In my estimation, 3D can be quite an impressive feat; there is certainly a more immersive cinematic experience when watching a film in 3D, though I suspect directors often end up prioritizing visual spectacle over the actual narrative depth. If I were to offer an assessment, I would say the quality of films being released in theaters—and indeed, across the industry at large—has declined quite drastically from around 2007 to the present day. The 2000s were rather inconsistent years for cinema; there was a vast array of high-quality films alongside a significant amount of mediocre work, ranging from solid blockbusters to deeply challenging, gritty pieces. Perhaps this is simply the natural ebb and flow of the medium. For instance, the 1970s were a golden era, the 80s felt somewhat lackluster, the 90s were another peak, and the 2000s were merely middling. Who can say? Maybe we might see a resurgence of truly great filmmaking this decade, but given how things have been trending lately, I wouldn't be making any bold predictions.