Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday February 12 2016, @11:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-not-to-do dept.

Did you hear? Virtual reality is legitimate now, because filmmakers have found it.

Forget those childish toys that you call video games, and think beyond those little 360-degree videos captured at concerts. VR is now a place for capital-F Films, complete with New York Times celebrations and dedicated exhibits at Sundance. Recent VR films have some impressive sounding premises, too: immersion in the wilderness alongside bison and cheetahs; trippy, sense-filling music videos; stark, racially charged drives through poor neighborhoods; and much more.

VR filmmakers have taken some pretty diverse approaches, but most of them have one unfortunate thing in common: an overreaction to the form. In their rush to put viewers inside their concepts, these burgeoning creators forgot about the importance of directing and cinematography—a fact that I, a devout believer in VR's future, can no longer stomach.
...
  [VR film's] worst moments hint to where the format will improve as filmmakers adopt the best practices that 3D game makers have practiced for decades. Good 3D storytelling is as much about giving viewers power as it is about taking it away—about blacking out and obstructing freedom in ways that both focus our attention and convey an important truth (where you're not allowed to go, and what that means, for example).

VR may soon force viewers to confront interesting and even harrowing new concepts in the arts world. Until then, the people who make those VR films need to confront a few truths of their own. Otherwise, we're going to nod our heads 'no' to the expectation of painfully nodding our heads all over virtual worlds.

The article reviews 3 VR films at the Sundance film festival.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @12:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @12:18PM (#303158)

    Failure, Fore though (none), Feature rich (none), #$%^^ 'ed got that.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @02:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @02:09PM (#303192)

    I find it ridicules that Hollywood is churning out bull$hit lately. Watch any post apocalyptic movie or series and notice how the female actors are wearing makeup and have groomed hairstyles. Just last night I stopped watching "The 100" because of that. Even the Resident Evil movies have the lead actors always wearing fresh makeup. It's fake fodder.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 12 2016, @02:27PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:27PM (#303202) Journal

      What did you think happened to all those call-center workers in Bangalore who have been down-sized? They're writing scripts now.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @03:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @03:16PM (#303236)

      You stopped watching the 100 just because of that? How about how the show keeps going off in random directions and they just randomly kill everyone off? Not to mention truckloads of scientific inaccuracies. I can't even think of recent TV show where there is a meaningful story arc and the story progresses towards that goal - instead every episode of every modern TV show is randomly pulled out of someones ass an hour (or half) at a time.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:22PM (#303276)

        It was interesting up until last season. I kept watching it hoping it would get interesting again, but the runway model makeup screwed it up for good. Still hoping they bring Fringe back, that was good until the final season too. The new X-Files? Still up in the air on that.

    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday February 12 2016, @07:50PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:50PM (#303372) Homepage Journal

      Hey, it's not just the women dude! I sometimes think that the make-up and even the traditional musical accompaniment in movies is becoming embarrassingly archaic. I mean, it sort of breaks suspension of disbelief when you notice the deep red lipstick on a male actor and hear music playing away. Reality doesn't have a musical score. Don't get me wrong, the music can still work, but when you stop and think about it, it is kind of old fashioned.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @03:18PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @03:18PM (#303239) Homepage Journal

    I saw just one 3-D movie, it gave me a headache. During the movie, a character lowered a rope down into a hole, with the cameras at the bottom of the hole looking upward. From my point of view it looked as if the rope was stiff, and being extended horizontally toward me from the screen.

    I'd like a 3-D movie if they didn't do anything special with the 3-D. I expect VR has the same problems.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:16PM (#303465)

      >I'd like a 3-D movie if they didn't do anything special with the 3-D. I expect VR has the same problems

      Seconded. Ever seen the 'ol 3D movies of the 50's? Where buckets of water, fists, bouncing balls, and anything & everything was being jammed into the camera just to say, "Hi this is a 3D movie!".
      Then there's the G.Lucas scenes added to the original SW trilogy such as Jawas falling off Banthas, just to say, "Our special effects team has moved beyond puppets now, see?."

      Now in contrast go watch Guardians Of The Galaxy in 3D. Nothing 'seemed' pushed in our faces, it just seems like a natural scene. And the one nano-second where a knife whizzed by our faces, it was done once, and to add to the anxiety of the fight.

      *Down with shaky cam, down with double-zooming while tracking. Yay for storytelling, yay for visually well lain out scenes!
      (and PS: MichaelDavidCrawford for Prez. He has taste.)

  • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday February 12 2016, @03:21PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday February 12 2016, @03:21PM (#303242)

    So these people are just now figuring out how to tell stories using interactive computer animation/video games? And "VR" is still considered new?

    It's not even half as good as Apple II Softdisk's "Alfredo's Arduous Adventures" :P

    • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday February 12 2016, @05:04PM

      by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday February 12 2016, @05:04PM (#303305) Homepage

      I get your point, I'm seeing a lot of "me too" stuff now that VR is emerging (i.e. "check out watching grass grown, now in VR!!" type stuff). VR will be huge and now everyone wants a piece.

      However, it appears with the VR storytelling (or as you put it, like a passive gaming experience) opens up some interesting opportunities and challenges for filmmakers. First off, when you don a VR HMD, your brain thinks that you are actually in a new world (as apposed to viewing a new world through a window like on a monitor). No, you probably won't "forget" that you are actually in your living room for more than a moment, but the brain is telling you that the world is real. This is tough to explain unless you've tried it. My point is, instead of watching "a movie that is all around you", instead you feel like you are experiencing an event. That should indicate why this is alluring for storytellers.

      Furthermore, as the article mentions, being able to look around anywhere is a huge challenge for filmmakers; they are accustomed to controlling the exact position/angle/motion etc. of the camera, everything can be positioned in frame to their specification. In VR, you have to design an experience that can be viewed from any angle, which is basically the opposite of film-making. Instead it's more like designing a play/performance/live theater that you are inside.

      I've yet to experience one of these VR films, but come April (when my rift arrives) I'll be able to elaborate further.

      --
      (Score:1^½, Radical)
      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday February 12 2016, @07:57PM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday February 12 2016, @07:57PM (#303375) Journal

        Actually I think its gonna bomb for the same reason 3D is still more of a gimmick and home 3D bombed...too many people won't be able to stomach it which just ruins the communal experience of enjoying films.

        I could sit down and watch a film with my family, have a great time watching it followed by discussing it afterward, with a 3D movie? That automatically cut out nearly two thirds of my family because either their glasses would cause the movie to be blurry, it would give them a headache, or would make them queasy. this includes myself and I love playing FPS and flight sims and the like but I watch more than an hour of a 3D movie? I'll have a skull splitting headache for a couple hours, thus making a 3D movie about as appealing as a trip to the DMV.

        From what I've seen the same is true for VR only more so, as friends of mine that have no problem with 3D movies that have tried VR headsets found them headache inducing. Will it find a niche? Probably, just as 3D has its niche, if I had to guess I'd say porn as I have zero doubt somebody will combine VR with sex toys to make interactive porn that brings the word "interactive" to a whole new level, but movies? People want to share movies with their friends and family and if this tech cuts out huge swaths of your friends and family then what is the point of going to a movie?

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:13PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:13PM (#303822) Journal

          It might not replace 2D movies, but it will probably find its niche. Film and TV didn't kill off live theater.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:15PM

          by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:15PM (#304201) Homepage

          Actually I think its gonna bomb

          I think you are going to find you are wrong on this point. Until you have tried one of the consumer version headsets, suspend your disbelief. The applications and advantages of this tech are rather enormous.

          their glasses would cause the movie to be blurry

          The Rift (and Vive I believe) should accommodate typical glasses, but if they are very large they may not fit.

          friends of mine that have no problem with 3D movies that have tried VR headsets found them headache inducing

          This is because the discomfort is for an entirely different reason; "VR sickness" (or "sim sickness") usually occurs because of "motion-to-photon latency" and low refresh-rate (FPS), meaning the lag between a head movement and the screen updating AND not enough FPS (frames-per-second). Carmack and others have basically eliminated sim sickness that are due to these factors. One can still get sick from an environment that is jarring to the senses (for example doing fast barrel rolls in a plane) but that is due to the fact that it feels real; doing this IRL would yield the same result. There's other issues like locomotion; but they are being worked on and have some interesting "solutions".

          porn

          Yea, it will be a thing but I don't see the advantages over a monitor just yet, I think that will come later. I think it's mostly a fad right now in that area.

          People want to share movies with their friends and family

          Two words: Social VR. My family are spread out across the country. Imagine being able to put on a headset and feel like you are in the same living room, watching the same movie/show with your loved ones despite them being thousands of miles away! Hell, forget the living room, now you can be in your own private movie theater with the best seats in the house. This is already a thing BTW.

          --
          (Score:1^½, Radical)
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Monday February 15 2016, @02:08AM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday February 15 2016, @02:08AM (#304416) Journal

            Uhhh I've seen a demo of the porn and....yeah its gonna be fricking HUGE in that arena. Have you ever seen any of the "virtual" DVDs like Virtual Jenna, where they film it so it appears that its YOU having sex with Jenna Jameson? Picture that brought to the next level and combined with a computer controlled sex toy. Basically when the porn star strokes you you feel the touch thanks to the sex toy and with the VR you can enjoy any view you wish. They are gonna make a ton on that.

            As for the rest? I'm afraid there is one part they simply cannot fix wrt "sim sickness" and that is the inner ear. I've talked to guys that have used the high end gear that doesn't have the lag and they still feel queasy and from specials I have seen on using the tech in military applications the reason is the inner ear is telling your brain you aren't moving while the visuals are telling you that you are. this difference in input is what throws you off and make you feel like you have motion sickness. this is why the only places the military is using VR for training is for things like Bradley gunners, they don't move fast enough IRL for the VR to throw off the inner ear. For all other uses the military stuck with the full size simulators because their movement fixes the sickness.

            Call me crazy but I really can't see families wanting to go watch movies where you have to take Dramamine before you go in to keep from feeling sick, and unless they come up with a way to directly stimulate the inner ear to fool it into believing the movement? A lot of folks are gonna get sick using this tech.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by NullPtr on Friday February 12 2016, @06:47PM

    by NullPtr (3786) on Friday February 12 2016, @06:47PM (#303346) Journal

    No, you're going to shake you heads no. Nodding is for yes.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:56AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:56AM (#303644) Journal

      That depends on where you are. [straightdope.com]

      The only place I know of where they completely reverse the meaning of our nod and head-shake gestures is Bulgaria. There a nod means no and a shake means yes.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:20PM

        by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:20PM (#304204) Homepage

        Also, in India there is a "head-bob" motion that is similar (but not the same as) shaking one's head "no" in our culture, yet it indicates "yes". Sort of a reverse cognate of body language.

        OT: My favorite reverse cognate is sound "yeah" which means "no" in Japanese (technically the sound is "ee-eah" but it's pretty damn close to "yeah").

        --
        (Score:1^½, Radical)
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 12 2016, @07:34PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:34PM (#303358) Journal

    (where you're not allowed to go, and what that means, for example).
     
    I think that's more a creature of necessity rather than an artistic triumph. We're just used to it...
     
    In reality, not being able to climb over that 1 foot tall rock in front of you destroys the immersion.
     
    What would be better would be if the story somehow follows you around no matter where you went. And, you could go anywhere. Of course, figuring out how to actually pull that off is above my pay grade.

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:18AM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:18AM (#303561) Homepage

    >VR may soon force viewers to confront interesting and even harrowing new concepts in the arts world

    Yeah, like deciding whether to look at the busty actress's boobs or face during a serious scene.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @10:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @10:36PM (#303809)

      Your comment seems to imply that these VR "films" lack pause, review ("rewind") and slow-motion capabilities. The better VHS players had all of those.