There has been a lot of movies to come out in 3D lately. When my friends tell me that they saw this film or that film in 3D I have to admit that I kind of cringe a little. I'm not a fan. I have never seen a movie in 3D, nor do I really want to see a movie in 3D. But you are saying "hey there buddy, you can't say you don't like something if you've never tried it!" This is true I must admit. Except with 3D films.
To understand my reasoning you have to understand that I am somewhat of a film purist, meaning that I am an advocate for film being presented the way that it always has been, the way it should be, in 2D. Many people who advocate the 3D method say that its a greater way to experience the film, to be able to almost grasp the image and become more immersed within the world of the story. This reasoning is irrelevant to me because, even at the 2D level, if the story is captivating enough, and the production quality is good, I am already immersed within the story, to the point where I shut out the rest of the room. I find that with almost all of the films I see in theatres. Its not about the image coming out at you that makes the viewer able to become immersed in the story, its the film itself. For over a hundred years this has happened. Do you not feel the same twinge of pain as I feel when a character breaks the 4th wall by looking into the camera? I am immersed in their world, I don't want them in mine.And to think all of this has been done with a 2D image. I think this is what 3D would do to me, make the characters come into my space, instead of me escaping to theirs. It would almost ruin the magic of the film for me. All you want to do is escape your life, and you have a person throwing a sword in your face? No thank you sir.
Not only does 3D break the escapism of film, but it also diminishes the quality. The article "Annoying Trends that Make Every Film Look The Same" from the website cracked.com (I know guys, bear with me on this though) states that the reason why 3D movies look so bad (Clash of the Titans; The Last Airbender) is because of the conversion process. Most films are not shot for 3D but go through a process that allows for the film to be converted to 3D. This process makes the film image darker and muddier. In addition to this dimming, the glasses worn by the audience also dim the image making it 2X as dark as it would be if it were presented in the regular format. Now, I don't know about you, but if I were a cinematographer, and I worked my ass of to try to get the right exposure and the right tone for the full length of the film, all to have it be ruined for spectacle sake, then I would be royally pissed. That like tampering with someone's art. "Oh hey Jackson Pollack, I know you worked really hard on this piece but I think, in order to make more money, we are going to paint two coats of grey over it. No big deal it will work out fine." Dumb.
I am glad to see though, that filmmakers are now rejecting 3D as a means of presenting their films. JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon have both spoken out against it. Christopher Nolan opted not to make 'Inception' 3D which was SUCH a great choice. That is an example of a film that brought me right into that world and kept my attention. I would highly suggest reading the article "Resistance Forms Against Hollywood’s 3-D Push" By Michael Cieply in the NY Times if you get a chance. It is a really interesting article that talks about the 3D back lash and considerations of 3D for such highly anticipated films as 'The Hobbit' and 'The Avengers.'
If you can't tell by now, I don't plan on seeing any 3D films anytime soon. I agree that for some films, 3D methods can be used effectively (sort of). Avatar and most animated films can do well and have done well in 3D. Live action however should never be subjected to it. This method of presentation is just a way for studios to make 2X as much money on films they know will do well. It serves no artistic purpose and will probably give me a headache in the process.
I like your reasoning. That's why the only ventures into 3D should be done in video games, a genera that has been exploring the third dimension since Super Mario 64 debuted in Japan in 1996.
ReplyDeleteI believe that video games are not only about the immersion of ones self into a created reality, but also the exploration by the player of that reality, therefore everything in that world being more "realistic" or the player having the ability "to almost grasp the image and become more immersed within the world of the story" is only fitting. That is not to say that one's reality should become the world of the video game, but that the third dimension that video games have been exploring for almost fifteen years has the right to be explored fully, now that we have the technological capabilities.
Because the video game form is constantly redefined and becomes closer and closer to the "real" it's like a pre-evolved form of film that's been trying to catch up since video game inception. However, in the evolutionary process, the video game genera has taken a turn to be something so incredibly different that the end results of playing through a game vs. the end results of watching a film don't translate, except, perhaps, in emotional content (for some games).
So, put the technology where it should be and let the movie makers do their thing.
Having sat through one too many of these 3D films myself, I can wholeheartedly agree with all of these. It is cool, but movies shouldn't need all the bells and whistles of things popping out at you in the theater if they are truly good... I'm just sayin'
ReplyDeleteYou know who really hates 3D? Roger Ebert. Have you read any of his blog posts about it? I think that's why he gave Toy Story 3 a lower rating. I don't think I even know many people, including myself, that actually saw that movie in 3D. It's not just that it impairs artistic quality, but if its not done right, it merits bad reviews too which can be damaging.
ReplyDelete