"Why no 3d movies?" Topic

I saw a YouTube about the metaverse seemingly failing in public interest.

Also there was a Hornby show on tv with a chap sticking a camera on a model train, to viewed in a headset.

Obviously it would be cool tech to try on the tabletop.

But why are there no 3d movies?

They did the matrix in the 90s, and motion capture these days.

How hard is it to fill a studio with cameras and create a 3d film (well, movie) that you can view and walk around in using a head set.

Imagine being in a battle, running up the beach in Saving Private Ryan, being in the thick of the action in Braveheart as that guy takes an arrow to the bum. Standing between maximus and the tiger. Watching that storm trooper clock his head from every conceivable angle.

Obviously only new movies, but you get the point.

All the technology is there. So where are the movies?

PS

To clarify, I'm not talking about regular 3d movies, but ones you can actually walk around in, even in a limited fashion (don't want the viewer being like "that" urukhi, running off in the wrong direction).

So "VR" movies?

I've been inside a full size VR simulator for commercial jet engine maintenance, and that had a fair amont of computer grunt behind it.

I can't imagine the computational power and storage requirements to render a couple of hours of cinema quality movie footage that each individual viewer can wander around in separately. Wouldn't it rather spoil the story if you are sitting in the corner of a dusty tower while the main characters dialogue is taking place half a mile away?

The expense of shooting 3D for movies and none 3D for TV can be very expensive. So dump the 3D for movie.

"So "VR" movies?"

Not really, as it would be a typical movie, for the most part. It wouldn't likely be interactive either.

But who knows where it could go.

(I think we all know where it could go considering every media ends up with women taking their clothes off. Novels, magazines, films, internet. Hey, I ain't complaining! Just pointing out the obvious. Name one film about VR or 3d type stuff that doesn't go there. Vertuocity, the 13th floor, Gamer, matrix even if the red dress stayed on. Also note how the ones that aren't pretty ladies, like metropolis, robocop tv show, Time Trax, are your best friend, EMH, Thor in sg1. Minor detour, but a fun one.)

"power and storage requirements to render a couple of hours of cinema quality movie footage"

Again, I'm not talking CGI, at least not entirely. I mean a movie with actors on a set.

"Wouldn't it rather spoil the story if you are sitting in the corner of a dusty tower while the main characters dialogue is taking place half a mile away?"

I refer you to my reference re the rouge uruk.

"ones you can actually walk around in, even in a limited fashion (don't want the viewer being like "that" urukhi, running off in the wrong direction)."

In the LOTR special features (don't ask me which disc, an extended version one, probably fellowship??) there was a segment about the Massive program made for King Kong, before it was shelved. They then used it for LOTR. In the segment they tell, and show, the story of an urukhi running away into the distance, away from battle.

Our 3d movie will need to have some parameters to prevent this. For fun there could be the option of turning them off.

Id assume you'd just be "floating" around, so it would be a basic distance barrier, perhaps forcing you to look in certain directions.

Like those computer games that give the illusion of free roaming, but your really on a track.

Of course some of this would be up to the production company.

Once you watch the movie proper, you could then play it again, but go off exploring, as good or bad as that may be.

Perhaps they put in Easter eggs to find.

Anyway, it wouldn't be about 3d graphics, more lots of 2d images.

A smart way may be, perhaps using green screen, to have the actors and background saved sepretly.

Then it could have a series of shots, as a movable background. Then the same for each actor in front of it.

As you turn, the background image changes accordingly, as do each of the actor images, which can also shrink and slide, giving the illusion of perspective.

Something like that.

PS

These 2d images could be typical 3d, like used for 3d films. Or not.

It's sort of six if one…

Moving through a 2d movie, like your the camera man, or having it 3d to your eyes as well?

Either sounds good.

2d will be cheaper though.

The 2d pictures idea would play out a bit like the pre 3d graphics "3d" first person shooters. Just more advanced.

There is enough to complain about in currently produced WWII movies without adding expensive wonky 3D nonsense to them.
You KNOW that the first complaint will be about historical accuracy. It's a given.
Add to that the fact that 3D is always silly looking and forced.
Finally there is the very real possibility that "realistic" 3D in a war scene will cause some audience members to flip out. It has allegedly happened before with 3D horror movies. (I'm willing to accept that that may have been publicity stunts.)

Throw in the expense. Add to that the market uncertainty that movies have today. There are no certain hits.

It's just not worth it. I may not be typical, but I'd much rather watch a movie at home on TV than go to the hassles of going to movie theaters.

There is only one reason to make expensive movies. That is to make a massive profit. Period.

… and to pay off the massive actor fees at 10-50 million a
movie.

I don't begrudge actors getting paid mega bucks. You are of course assuming that they actually get paid! That's not a given. Just ask Scarlett Johansson.

It occurs to me that we are getting fewer and fewer decent WWII movies for a simple reason. The veterans are now at least in their 90s. And they're dying off.
The Golden Age of WWII movies was during the time the veterans could contribute to the story, and even act in them. Look at The Longest Day, specifically the Pegasus Bridge scenes. The officers had all been there!

These days, history is nothing but a basis for a story. Accuracy is irrelevant.

We had 3D movies, Metalstorm comes to mind. Usually it was jump scares of things flying at the viewer from the screen. I think the novelty wore off pretty quickly so the return on investment just isn't there.

I get motion sickness from 3-D (whether movie or computer/game) so I'll pass on it… ;-)

"It has allegedly happened before with 3D horror movies"

Alien. Master and commander. Probably others.

Had a girl run out on me during Rogue.

So it does happen.

"the hassles of going to movie theaters."

I was thinking goggles at home. Although just on a tv may work also.

It wouldn't be for a large audience, unless everyone was moving around at once which may take more tech.

"There is only one reason to make expensive movies. That is to make a massive profit. Period."

I'm not sure that's always true, and it certainly doesn't always go that way either.

"These days, history is nothing but a basis for a story. Accuracy is irrelevant."

It has always been that way.

If you make an accurate WW2 film, your making a documentary, not a movie.

I see endless things with people complaining about film accuracy, but the people never seem to know much about film.

Trust me, things are inaccurate in films for a reason.

Films, story in general, are not just as it happened and to whom it happened too.

There is a reason I have watched Jurassic Park on two TVs at once, one forward's, one backwards.

Because it's the same forwards and backwards.

You can add in reading Genesis at the same time too, it's all the same.

Hammond's in the naughty corner for a reason. Elle's mumbling behind Muldoon for a reason.

I haven't gotten into WW2 films yet, but it will be same.

How can films, like T2 and Spiders , or A place beyond the Pines and Jurassic Park lost world (and Macbeth!), be the same if it's all about accuracy.

They can't.

That's why things are different in history films to actual events, because it's likely based on some other story and needs to fold in on itself as well.

I saw a cool doco on Braveheart where historians are actively complaing about the lack of accuracy.

I haven't looked at Braveheart yet, but from all the film's I have, it will be the same. Based on something else, and likely very well constructed from its moment by moment algorithm, chiasmus and fractal nature.

That said. Real life is the same. And stories written without such knowledge still follow the same rules, to whatever extent.

But in movies it's definitely deliberate. Oddly doccos too.

As for older films, King Kong 1933 has it. I was even trying to check the deleted scenes as I feel they fit in appropriately. Same with the JP ones.

Don't get me started, or we'll be here forever, and stay away from the rabbit hole yourself. It will consume you.

"We had 3D movies"

Yeah, not what I'm talking about.

All my life I have interacted with books and films, war, Westerns, whatever and always through a medium that costs nothing. It's called imagination but we seem intent on stamping it out and reducing ourselves to an audience of gawpers dancing to the tune of capitalism's latest technological wheeze.

You mean like the printing press/publishers, celluloid/motion picture production companies, defence contractors/government military departments, Smith and Wesson/cattle tycoons?

I'm sure they are all in it for the imagination.

Yeah, imagining all they money they will make!

They aren't pushing digital and CGI because it's good for imagination, that's for sure.

"audience of gawpers dancing to the tune of capitalism's latest technological wheeze."

As seen in so many black and white examples of when the silver tongued salesman comes to town peddling the latest invention.

This is not a new concept.

Mad Men are not either.

King Kong had scenes cut after initial screening/s that are now lost.

There is your imagination at work.

"If this film had love interest, it would gross twice as much."

I don't know if the OP is expecting "quality" WWII movies or not. If he is, he hasn't been paying attention.

Oh well.

As confusing as that post is, it seems irrelevant to the topic.

I don't watch a lot of WW2 movies.

The one with Sean Connery, I think it was the longest day, was good.

Kelly's heroes.

North Star.

White Tiger wasn't quite as good as I seemed to remember from bits I'd seen.

The great escape.

Flags of our fathers, letters from iajima, were good.

Others blur a bit.

Can we count Rocketeer and Indiana Jones and the last Crusade?

Oh, go on, let's.

Both highly recommended.

Oh, dah, Empire Of The Sun. Top notch.

Lots of others I've seen too. Will have to study some.

White Christmas!

Brunanburh yep, everything is geared to having to press buttons these days and having the latest gadget because technology is so good – until it goes wrong, of course! And sadly, I don't think imagination is in the technology manual. It's been replaced by upgrade etc. LOL
I had a teenage relative asking wouldn't I prefer to play wargames on a computer instead of having to physically move all those miniatures around by hand. Save a lot of time. He looked baffled when I said it's all part of the fun.

WW2 with a paddle-ball scene, oh joy.

Now, digitally editing Patton to redo the tanks would be a great use of technology!

"because technology is so good"

And wargaming is not immune.

People pushing 3d printing and plastic and resin, even online rules.

Maybe it's an age thing?? But early 90s had a lot of things well sorted, that have since been mucked up.

You had metal grunts and hero's, sweet. Plus some limited plastic options for grunts to make the games more affordable, excellent.

No pot luck resins (only a few, mostly big things) or liney prints, or stupid crazy plastics, or even bazillion part figures.

Less companies, less choice. Which is a good thing, especially for the uninitiated. Just as likely to pick the "wrong" game these days. Gets to the can't be bothered stage pretty quickly.

So on

Gazzola, agreed. I've had youngsters sink into depression during a power cut while us old timers just lit a candle and got out a pack of playing cards. I'm happy to play miniatures or boardgames but have never played a wargame of any kind on a computer.

Speaking of computer games.

I just had Kohan immortal sovereigns turn up that I'm keen to get to.

Been flogging the demo for its sister game for decades. But that's harder to find.

Dune 2000, Age of empires (with rise of Rome expansion) I can also recommend. As I can Stronghold.

All those game are great single player but can be played multiplayer too.

Oh and Warzone 2100 is top notch, even being 3d.

And Colonization, if only I could get my computer to run it. Its Alice Cooper to my Wayne and Garth. And it's turn based, but not multi player.

You don't even need a new computer for most of these, just check your foot paths.

I'm actually looking for an ancient keyboard to get colonization going on a garage sale $5 USD computer.

I tried to watch Avatar with 3D glasses and I could not see a damn thing clearly and it made me dizzy. I watched it later on TV and I finally found out what was going on. The alien version of Dances With Wolves. Saw Midway and 1917 in 2D+ or something like that and it was just fine. I rather watch a 70mm Imax size movie instead of 3D.

Why aren't more movies shot in 70mm IMAX?

To clarify, I'm not talking about regular 3d movies, but ones you can actually walk around in, even in a limited fashion (don't want the viewer being like "that" urukhi, running off in the wrong direction).

That's crazy talk. You are talking something like a holodeck on Star Trek, today. Yeah right. You mean a 4D movie. Not in your or my life time.

Brunanburh – playing wargames on computers is like the computers are actually doing the playing, the humans are just pressing buttons. But I know some people do enjoy playing technology controlled wargames so I guess it is each to their own.

"The alien version of Dances With Wolves."

Actually, as it turned out, Avatar was a rip off of a story by a boy in Colorado.

"That's crazy talk. You are talking something like a holodeck on Star Trek, today. Yeah right. You mean a 4D movie. Not in your or my life time"

Not at all.

Games like doom, alien trilogy, so on are decades old.

Something along those lines, just using more and higher resolution images, being photography, sounds easily doable to me.

Fake or fortune showed a camera set up to photograph a painting and captured thousands of images so you could look at it from any angle and in multiple lighting types zooming in and out and moving around.

Simply swap multiple lighting types for multiple frames of motion.

So, yes, you can do what I'm suggesting, at least to the quality of a 90s first person shooter, but obviously even better today.

Whether is goggles or just the tv, it is possible.

Basically some sprites moving around as per your movie, spitting out an image a frame based on the direction of the viewers perspective. If it's behind the viewer, maybe it skips displaying an image, saving power?

The background could be a basic image with more sprites for background eliments.

Perhaps have several sizes of images, used based on distance from viewer, again to save power.

Images change frame by frame.

Something like that.

Then you just move around amoung the images.

Maybe helms deep or world war Z type things could get tricky. But that's why you can have multiple sizes, even perhaps having far distance simple show group photos.

All issues to be solved, easily enough.

Something like that.

PS

I would urge the computer chaps to have a go at a computer game. Probably something 90s 2d. Stronghold may be of interest, it's mediaeval and focused on seige warfare. Otherwise something like Dune 2000 or age of empires. All 3 are real time.

There are also plenty of turn based game out there. Lots of WW2 hex based ones. Civilization may be one to look at, world history.

Just give one or two an hour, then you know what your on about.

Watching 3D is actually much more demanding on your own vision than you might think. When you focus on something near and then far you change the focal length of your lens accordingly. But if all you have is just the illusion of 3D on a screen in front of you, then you will soon start to feel ill, as the world does not correspond to what your brain is telling you. No matter how distant that castle and how near is Brad Pitt in the virtual world on screen, in practice they are the same distance from your cinema seat. It can be overcome of course, with practice.