I have been thinking about 3D lately, because it's so big now in movies. Most movie critics hate it, they think it doesn't add much and takes away a lot. It can be distracting, costs more, and lowers the image brightness by half. And a certain percentage of people (up to 10% I've heard) either get headaches from it or cannot perceive the effect at all due to the way their brains process 3D information. And if you only have one eye, well...you're also out of luck, monoboy.
I am of divided opinion. I perceive it very well, it doesn't make me sick and I think there is a place for it...just not everywhere. Certainly it can be used well, and certainly it can also be abused. But I must say I do like it in some instances. I'd never want to see a reworked 3D Unforgiven or Casablanca, but documentaries and animated movies can really shine in 3D. The series of IMAX 3D documentaries made in the Grand Canyon, and in caves and underwater look amazing and really add to the experience...they put you into the story.
And then along comes something like Piranha...with the 3D used mostly to make coed boobs bigger and pop man-eating fish out at you. Yeah, 3D works best when it has a reason to be there (not that boobs aren't a good reason for almost anything per say...), and when the so-called "forth-wall" is not violated - when the 3D goes "in" but not "out" of the screen.
I have a certain soft spot for 3D (and by the way, if you haven't seen a modern 3D movie you may be picturing the old 50's style with the two-color anaglyph glasses...that's not used anymore. It's pretty sophisticated now with multiple projectors and circular polarized glasses that work much better) - whenever I see 3D it shoots me right back to my childhood days of the GAF viewmaster, which of course was a 3D stereoscopic viewer.
A Christmas Carol in 3D was very good (especially that part where the floor turns transparent and you can see into the "room" below), as was Avatar. And Tron used 3D only in the computer world, which was novel and worked pretty well. Most of the animation (Pixar-style) I've seen has been really good too - they have perfect control over the virtual "cameras" and they can fine tune the picture very well. Even Ebert likes some of those instances. I saw a preview for Born to be Wild in 3D and it really drew me in, Viewmaster style.
But I'm a little worried that almost 50% of the movies coming out in 2011 seem to be in 3D. And while animation is easy to do, it's the live-action stuff that is scary. If you're not using the Avatar camera system the only way to do it is to shoot in 2D and convert it. That doesn't sound good. Similarly I've heard there are TVs on the market that will perform 2D to 3D "conversion" of any source...I don't even need to see that to know that's going to be terrible. Can you imagine? Get the vomit bucket ready.
1 comment:
Avatar was enhanced by 3D and I've seen some of the IMAX ones like Grand Canyon (remember, AT the Grand Canyon?). I agree that it has its place. I'm not interested in 3D'ing everything in sight. As much as I thought it was good in Avatar it was also distracting. I have this compulsion to keep comparing the desired 3D effect to "regular" viewing by removing the glasses from time to time. Good way to miss a crucial scene or line!
Post a Comment