E3 2010: Sony - Now In Amazing 3D-o-Vision!

  It's an exciting time to be a gamer at the moment, not only are there more and more quality games being released but we are currently living through a break-through moment in the way we play games. 3D is set to change the way we experience games like nothing before it and Sony seem to be leading the charge!


 While Sony seem to be investing a lot in new games and content for the PS3 and PSP at the moment they also seem to be investing in the way we play our games. During this years E3 Sony press conference, SCEA group president Kaz Hirai made a bold statement about how he sees Sony's position in the future of 3D gaming. He says he wants to do for 3D what the PS3 did for Blu-ray and goes on to claim that there will be 20 native 3D titles on available for the PS3 by March 2011.

  These are indeed fight'en words, especially when you consider that the games in question aren't gimmicky parlour tricks but fully fledged core titles like Killzone 3 and Grand Turismo 5.

  It's hard to be sceptical about Sony's commitment to this endeavour because they are already well under way in their mission. It has already been reported that the PS3 will be a fully functioning 3D console by 2010 and with Sony's 3D ready Bravia range of TV's, a firmware update supporting 3D and 3D versions of games like Wipeout HD and Pain already available on PSN this is a reality.

  The only question is cost. For anyone who has already bought a HDTV the cost has been considerable so the cost of a further upgrade to 3D and the corresponding glasses could be prohibitive. However, all new tech costs a lot at first and you consider the Sony's strategy in integrating the cross-bar into the Bravia range you can see how Sony are enticing customers with a fully integrated entertainment hub.

  But perhaps I digress here, the point is that 3D games are coming to Playstation and I for one want in!

Check out the rest of our Sony E3 coverage here:


SonyE32010 – Portable http://tiny.cc/8kwwh

SonyE32010 – PSN Plus http://tiny.cc/w8jqm


SonyE32010– Move http://tiny.cc/n20ri

SonyE32010 – Intro http://tiny.cc/gr0dx

SonyE32010 – Games http://tiny.cc/2gtsz

But where are the Titans?

I'm not a big history-buff or anything, but I do love mythology. I don't care if it's Greek, Celtic or Luxembourgian, I find it all very interesting. Most cultures have similar gods and myths, but the Greek's are experiencing a new resurge in popularity at the moment, as well as being really well known. Therefore it's no surprise that the remake of a 1981 classic film, "Clash of the Titans" is the top grosser at the box office this weekend. What more do you need? Angry gods, beautiful women, epic monsters, and oh yeah, it's in 3D.

I've mentioned before that I enjoy 3D technology, but am not really a big fan of it being used in everything. In this new "Clash of the Titans", the third dimension is used rather well, although it sometimes looked like an after thought, a worrying trend in this 3D generation. Not over used, not underutilized, but just enough to make it worth the extra dineros for the glasses. Once again though, these modern day 3D glasses are made to look more like sunglasses, tint and all, dimming the actual movie. I wish they would quit doing that! I can only imagine how much better the film would have been if the color had been 100% while still maintaining the 3D. Its not a really big deal, but can get distracting.

I didn't have many complaints about this film, it was actually pretty good... but the one thing that distracted me (aside from the color loss) was the fact that the mythology and storyline were a little off. As mentioned earlier I'm not a scholar in mythology, but they did get a few things mixed up. I'll write it off as "artistic license" this time, although I'm not quite sure there is any need to take artistic licenses over ancient lore. The topic of this post suggests there were no actual Titans in this movie entitled, drum roll please... "Clash of the Titans." There were plenty of other monsters, gods, warriors, and little beasties... but not a single Titan. For shame.

Well, I take that back, there were a few Titans, not from mythology mind you, but titans of acting. In one corner we have the awesome Liam Neeson playing the mighty Zeus, and in other corner we have the trickster Hades played by the talented Ralph Fienne. Neeson made a great Zeus, such a volatile god, loving one minute and vengeful the next and always full of emotion. Fienne came to please as well showing the darker side of deity. They worked together as beautiful opposites.

All together it's a fairly good movie. The story is simple and easy to follow, as long as you don't think about it too much, and makes a nice backdrop for some intense CGI. This movie is by no means award-worthy, but damn if it isn't nice to look at!

BTP 7: 3D Or Not 3D?

We at Beside The Point have been living in 3D for around nine years now and while it is nice to see movies finally catching up we want to know, are 3D films just another fad? Are they going too far? Or are they on the verge of becoming the industry standard? And further more, when will they finally make a film of everyone's favourite blog...Beside The Point 3D!

Unless you have been spending an unusual amount of time in the 19th century you can't help but notice that 3D films seem to be everywhere these days -well in movie theatres mostly, but one thing is certain: 3D films are getting a lot of attention. And it's not just from the slightly over-weight likes of you and me that are garnering such attention over 3D films, the film industry has seemingly found the “next big thing” in cinema. This was confirmed recently by Warner Bros' announcement that all tentpole films will be released in 3D.

According to Slashfilm.com, Warner Bros intend to release five 3D films in 2010 and nine in 2011. I can only assume that production for 2012 has been halted pending the apocalypse...

Also, Todd Phillips is currently writing the script for The Hangover 2 and has hinted that the film will probably be filmed in 3D as part of the industry's transition to 3D as standard. According to MarketSaw Phillips agrees that “soon everything will be shot in 3D” and likens it to the transition from black and white to colour. He also goes on to say that in relation to The Hangover 2 that the key lies in “restraint”. He references how James Cameron's Avatar was "not about poking you in the eye but instead it was pulling you in." It seems 3D is indeed on the march...

But is this really a good thing? At the most basic personal level these films cost us more to see, so we have to ask is it worth the extra cash? After all, it costs a fair penny to pay for the ticket, popcorn and soda and at most you get three hours of entertainment. So why do we do it in the first place? Entertainment obviously, so on the face of 3D can only be a good thing -if it enhances the movie experience. Now that's a big if.

Let's go back to the beginning. According to the bible that is Wikipedia, 3D films have existed in some form since 1890. So they're not what you'd call a new idea. In fact my first (and favourite) 3D experience was the Terminator 2-3D, Battle Across Time that I saw in Universal Studios, Florida. Now, this was opened in 1996, that's 14 years ago, yet we're only now seeing a real push of 3D films. Why is this? Is it a technology thing or is it simply a cash thing?

Think about it, when you take a filming style that has existed for a long time but costs a little more to produce why not implement it and charge a little more, or simply rely on wow-factor to boost sales? Probably because many films simply don't need to be shot in 3D. Look at Burton's Alice In Wonderland, it made a killing when it premièred in 3D ( $116.1 million on it's opening weekend) but I have yet to speak to anyone who feels the film gained much for being in 3D. And as for The Hangover -what could they possibly do? Projectile vomit anyone?

I don't buy the argument that 3D was not pushed early because of technological restraints, nor do I accept any artistic reason for every major film to be released in 3D. This isn't like the introduction of talkies or colour where the benefits are obvious, this is about paying extra for a little depth perception and some ridiculous glasses. And to be honest, the experience leaves me feeling a little flat.

I know that Hollywood as taken a kicking of late, piracy and the recession have taken their toll, but is pushing a fad like 3D really going to make such a difference? Don't get me wrong, sometimes 3D can and does enhance films, but the danger is that once people get fed up with paying to see films in 3D that didn't need the three dimensional treatment that they simply opt to go to the movies and watch standard viewings leaving 3D dead in the water. Which could prove to be a costly mistake for Hollywood. Perhaps the key to success here really is restraint.

-Drew-
Drew discovered the third dimension in 1914. It was in a basket beside some books.

Finally, wearing glasses is cool!

Avatar is the highest grossing movie ever, yup even more than Street Fighter: The Movie. Now this is partly to do with it being a pretty spectacular film, and it's partly to do with the tickets being a stonking £9 at my local cinema. How can you justify almost a Darwin on a ticket? 3D of course, the latest craze that is sweeping through Hollywood, and allowing cinemas to increase their prices by 30%.

3D technology has come a long way since the red and blue lense glasses of the past, and Cameron's epic pushed the technology to a new level, relying on making the effect subtle and natural rather than focusing on having things fly out of the screen towards the audience. Globally more cinemas are embracing 3D technology and going out of their way to bill as many films that use technology as possible, and why not, a tidy profit can be made on the ticket sales, and assuming the gimmick doesn't die out there should be a steady flow of customers willing to watch films with that extra dimension.
As I said; 'assuming the gimmick doesn't die out' which may well be happening already thanks to over saturation of the genre. If the actual films aren't of a high enough quality then the technology has to take all of the weight, and when against 3 hours of poorly scripted uninspiring dance drama that's a lot of weight to carry. With things so up in the air you'd think that 3D would still be viewed as a novel experiment and not a new full blown entertainment medium, apparently the TV manufactures aren't on the same wave length as the first batches of '3D ready' televisions are going to be with us in just a few months.

Sony are leading the charge with the Bravia, featuring bulky 3D glasses that need to be 'activated' before use, thanks to their 'active shutter technology'. Hideous glasses aside the effect is almost exactly the same as that when watching on the massive screens of the local multiplex, but with the added bonus of being able to change the film, or pop in a PS3 game and enjoy it in glorious 3D. While the thought of playing Killzone 2 or Wipeout Fury in HD is pretty exciting, it's not quite enough to justify investing in a whole new TV unless you're already in the market for one. Extra glasses will be available for purchase as well as the set is rumoured to only ship with 2 pairs, also the industry standard of 3D technology has yet to be decided, so don't expect to be able to take your Sony glasses to your friends house to use with his Phillips. A few companies are working on 3D tv's that don't require glasses and use a lenticular screen similar to the material those fancy hologram DVD cases work, but as of CES none of the major companies seem to be taking this option very seriously.

It's too early to call the 3 dimension race just yet, especially as pricing has yet to be announced. It's certainly an interesting concept, but not something worth diving in to until the format wars have settled down.