
VR is the opposite of cinema - rhema
http://blog.kenperlin.com/?p=17118
======
Animats
Non-interactive VR is what game developers call a "track ride". You're locked
to a path. You can look around, and maybe stop, start, shoot at stuff, and
solve puzzles, but you can't get off the track.

For a long time, game developers struggled with how to tell a story while not
locking the player into a track ride. A movie is a story. A good game today is
a place you visit. VR track rides are somewhere in between.

Getting a story line into a free play game is hard. But it's been done many
times now. GTA V is a good example. The GTA games are open, free-play worlds.
You're free to just drive around and sightsee, which is fun all by itself. The
gameplay "missions" give the player goals and achievements, but there are many
ways to achieve a goal. (Amusingly, the way to make the most money in GTA V is
to speculate in the stock market, not steal cars. Score one for realism.)

The VR crowd now has to face that problem. Otherwise, they'll go down the same
rathole as 3D TV and movies. (Yes, Avatar in 3D was good. That's because
Cameron is very good at visual world-building. Almost every other 3D movie
didn't need 3D or overdid it.)

~~~
stcredzero
_Non-interactive VR is what game developers call a "track ride". You're locked
to a path. You can look around, and maybe stop, start, shoot at stuff, and
solve puzzles, but you can't get off the track._

Kids a generation hence will think about games like this like we think of
"classic" books. (One of them will reinvent the Mark Twain about a classic
book being a book everyone says is important, but no one has actually read.)

We will further perfect an artistic and intellectual language of
interactivity. (What we now call the medium of games.) On top of that, we will
start to develop a language around emergence as well. The Minecraft generation
will be the first generation starting fully down the path of emergent-world
literacy.

~~~
Animats
This sort of thing was a big issue in game development about 10-15 years ago.
It was just becoming possible to build immersive, big worlds, and Everquest-
like games were seen as the future of gaming.

Then came "mobile", with casual gaming and much less immersive games.

Now the game industry has the Hollywood sequel problem. Looking at the list of
AAA titles for 2016, there's a Doom sequel, an XCom sequel, a Borderlands
spinoff, a Deus X sequel, a Mirrors Edge reboot, two Tom Clancy things, an
Uncharted sequel, yet another Street Fighter, a Crackdown sequel, a Dark Souls
sequel, a Gears of War sequel, and, inevitably, Final Fantasy 15. A big
question is whether those will be better in first person VR than in the usual
backed off camera view. Playing those in VR will involve a lot of head
turning.

~~~
cma
Everquest was a themepark ride. They even had lines to fight bosses enforced
by GMs.

Ultima Online would have been a much better example =P.

~~~
stcredzero
I don't think the gp poster really understands what's meant by a high-
emergence world.

------
manachar
I hadn't thought about virtual concerts, plays, ballets, operas, symphonies,
etc.

The performances could be live or prerecorded, obviously charging more for
live. The performers could be captured via some form of 3d capture.

The viewer could then have their choice of viewing angle. Think how much fun
it would be to watch a musical from the stage!

Some artists might even start experimenting with making it interactive.

I live far away from most cultural events, and would absolutely adore being
able to catch a ballet again without having to get on a plane.

~~~
digi_owl
I recall reading about cinemas that were experimenting with streaming live
operas etc from major stages around the world. Filmed such that the screen
became a stand in for the stage.

~~~
greggman
I think the issue is there's no one else at the theater. At least in SF
they've been trying that for years. I've never been but I'm just guessing
attendance is low. Being in a 200-400 person theater with 10 other people
watching a concert is not remotely the same experience as being at the concert
with 200-400 screaming cheering singing people around you.

------
aaron695
Correct.

I pay to chill and have an expert give me an exact and defined experience when
watching movies.

If I want stress, I'll play computer games and get the added benefits of
making (stressful) decisions.

We've have recorded vision for a century. Yet mp3's still have their massive
market. Video changed the radio star, but didn't kill it. Same will happen
with VR.

------
TechNewb
"Cinema doesn't have sound. Sound doesn't belong in cinema. True directors can
tell stories without sound."

Cinema has always embraced technological innovations. There is nothing that
says cinema has to be a shared experience. Semantics.

~~~
AimHere
But the difference is not just semantic.

VR experiences will necessarily lose a lot of cinematography (particularly
that regarding shot composition and framing) because the viewer is in control
over the camera, and they almost completely lose the ability to do editing too
(because cutting between scenes will make the viewer nauseous). Modern films
might seem superficially similar to non-interactive VR experiences because
they are both throwing images at screens, but there is a huge world of
cinematic techniques that everyone has grown up with (and most people won't
notice), that will be _severely_ constrained in VR, and it'll be a jarring
experience (at least for the people making this stuff, if not the consumers)
for a lot of them to be gone.

Perlin is likely right that what's likely to happen is that the scenes in non-
interactive VR will seem more like theatre than cinema. Sure, the people
putting this stuff together will probably come out of VFX houses but people
won't be relying on cinematographers, editors and film directors in the same
way. I suspect that it'll take a while for both the artistic problems of
living with the new constraints, and the technological problems (such as
taking live-action 360 footage with parallax) to be ironed out satisfactorily.

Interactive VR still looks much like video games, though, and while there will
be some measure of constraints with the new medium, other constraints will be
lifted (FPSes and flight simulators, for instance, won't need clumsy
workarounds to simulate head movement), so the games industry will probably
hit the ground running.

~~~
TechNewb
Agree with everything you're saying here. But the argument reminds me of a
similar one, where the established industry leaders try and define what skills
and processes go into cinema. Such as no sound vs sound, or film vs digital.
The fact that it's story telling on a screen is what in my mind defines
cinema.

There is cinematography in current virtual storytelling, such as firewatch,
life is strange, and grand theft auto. While none of those are VR, they could
be adopted to that medium as well. Cinematography is much more than camera
angle, and lens choice, imo, especially in the digitally generated world.
There are other techniques to lead the viewers attention, not so different
than techniques used on a well made imax.

Also of interesting note, 360 moving image recording is not new, and has been
around since the 1950s. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle-
Vision_360°](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle-Vision_360°)

------
jamesrom
This author only considers the active kind of VR. Where the user participates
by looking around or controlling some aspect of the environment or story.

Why can't I just sit back and watch events unfold before me? Why does everyone
assume I want to look around or interact with the story?

------
craftandhustle
I agree with these thoughts based on the current state of 360VR (or non-
interactive, if you will) but I'm optimistic about the future changing this
perspective. 360VR for narrative storytelling is in a very early, experimental
stage. It's difficult in part because it feels inherently gimmicky. A lot of
the traditional elements in the craft & technique of filmmaking are
unavailable to the storyteller (or, rather, need to be rethought). Closeups,
stylized editing, etc.

VR directors are slowly figuring out the best ways to draw attention / guide
the viewer, transition between shots and, most importantly, keep you immersed
in the STORY. But, there's a lot of room for improvement in the technology as
well. "Simple" things even — such as tracking the viewer's orientation so that
the following shot can be focused where the director wants regardless of where
the viewer has "travelled" to. Right now, the mass distribution system's for
VR (such as YouTube 360, Vrideo, et al which use Cardboard or GearVR tech),
don't currently allow for this.

I'd love to see the interactive tools of VR currently used in gaming (like
Unity) made available for narrative storytelling. Specifically, it's more of
an issue on the distribution side. The explosion in 360VR feels like it was
largely due to the ease and accessibility brought on by Google (Cardboard &
YouTube 360), now we need these tools to evolve.. and they are, slowly.

tl;dr; 360VR for storytelling is a bit gimmicky currently because it's in a
very early stage. I'm optimistic about a new wave of cinematic narratives in
VR as the technology evolves allowing for more direction/expression of the
craft.

------
Aelinsaar
It's a good point, but on the other hand, maybe it will inspire extra features
such as "Pause, and walk around the scene." You could have virtual interviews
with actors or people on the set, linked to the timestamp you paused at.

I can imagine it being a great way to experience cinema, but I take the
author's broader meaning.

~~~
shiro
A common illusion in films is that in one scene, you think you are watching a
fixed space/acting/events from just several different cameras.

In fact, it is often the case that acting, positioning of actors, backgrounds
or even locations, are adjusted for each shot. The acting you see in a master
shot is different from you see in a close-up shot in the same scene. It's
amazing what editors can do to build a coherent illusion from pieces of
footage.

So I agree on the original article; VR experience would be similar to plays
rather than films. Maybe future films would employ stage-play like effects
more (especially if you need to shoot a shot with cameras that allow VR
walkthrough, the whole new technique of film shooting need to be developed.)

~~~
Aelinsaar
I didn't think about any of that, and it's all interesting and relevant. Lots
to think about now!

------
pcl
I don't know if I would call that the opposite of cinema, but it's certainly a
huge difference.

I wonder what this would mwan mean for all the actors who prefer stage to
film. Would they shoot up in demand? What would that mean for theater in
general?

~~~
shiro
What I like about acting on stage is immediate, live reaction from audience.
Film acting largely lacks that, though there are techniques to compensate it.
I'd imagine "VR film shooting" would be similar to film acting in that regard.
(Except in the case that VR becomes live and bidirectional---that would be
interesting.)

~~~
Starsgen
You could record a dinner theater-style show.

Then the audio becomes the cue for expected viewpoint. Most people turn to
look at an actor speaking.

~~~
shiro
Right, recording non-proscenium theater plays would be interesting contents. I
like to watch (and often perform) round- or three-sided stages in a small
theater. That kind of shows are difficult to capture in traditional camera for
it loses the feeling of space surrounding audience.

------
jraines
Ken's blog is a consistently refreshing and insightful read. I had the
pleasure to meet him last fall and his enthusiasm for and perspective on the
future of how we experience art (and everything else, really) is energizing.

------
erikpukinskis
Except different people do see totally different things when they watch the
same film.

And looking at a painting can be a highly directed experience.

All of art is about the give and take of showing and allowing the viewer to
see.

------
jordache
those 360deg videos suck. I can't believe what content authors would like
that.. you have a total lack of control over the narrative, because you can't
control what the viewer sees.

~~~
TOMDM
I can't help but liken this sort of attitude to a statement like "why bother
crafting beautiful game environments, the player could just stare at their own
feet"

Sure, you no longer have control of where the viewer is looking, but you do
have control over the entire environment in which they now exist in. Changing
scenes and guiding the viewers attention are obviously new challenges, but
they are hardly insurmountable, and implying that they are enough to destroy
the value of the medium is just lazy.

------
Terr_
This is not new, this is _exactly_ the same friction that already existed
between 2D movies and 2D games.

That extra dimension--the sensation of depth--doesn't change the fundamental
rift between passive/interactive camera control. Just close one eye while
watching/playing to see why...

~~~
cloudmike
I think you're right that the tension between passive/interactive and
storytelling/agency isn't new. But the tension is heightened in VR.

What's new is that filmmakers and game makers are building VR experiences for
the same audience and hardware. They're on the same turf. Outside of VR,
filmmakers create for TV/cinema, and game makers create for PC/console/mobile.

I think Ken Perlin is suggesting that new discoveries will be made as this
collision of worlds happens. The friction you mentioned becomes more visible
to a larger number of people with a wider variety of skills and goals.

------
Starsgen
I like the dinner theater concept applied to VR.

~~~
DonHopkins
Yeah, but have you ever tried to eat with a VR helmet on?

