APzombie posted a BLOG item almost 2 years ago

3D and my arguement against it

heres the thing. 3D is the current kick studios and theaters are attempting because of their fear of pirating, blu-ray and all the jazz. this of course isn't new. They've re-invented cinema every time they think theaters are being threatened.

Radio's get on the market, they make talkies.
T.V.'s get on the market, they make it color.
Color T.V.'s get on the market, they make it widescreen.
VHS comes in, they make surround sound.
DVD's become popular, why not put our blockbusters on those IMAX screens?

thing is, when one of the above examples were introduced, they were almost immediately integrated into every studio produced picture. My problem with 3D is that the fucking technology is 50 years old. It's been around since the Dial M for Murder days and fundamentally it hasn't changed since. more importantly, it hasn't become the technological standard the others became.

That, and there are four things that really, really, really turn me off with 3D...

1. it supplements physical stuff popping out at you when it should be the opposite, it should draw you in. problem is, the popping out is an easy effect, whereas the pulling you in? thats a bit trickier- that requires storytelling. it's not about how you show it but how you use it. i think filmmakers are, accidental or not, relying on the technical effect instead of utilizing immersion through genuine interest in the material and the characters.

2. 3D diffuses the color by 30%. wait, what? yep. When you put on the glasses, you are diffusing the color on screen, you are at best seeing 70% of the intended color. If i had to choose between going down Burton's Rabbit hole and Cameron's moon amazon in their full color or a diffused version with a stick and a hat flapping about in my face- the choice is simple. i'll sign up with the full color 2D projection.

3. Glasses. It may just be me, but they both physically annoy and obstruct the communal aspect of going to the cinema. there is nothing more impersonal than a date where you are both behind dark shades. you may argue that the cinema in general is a bit impersonal. to an extent of course it is, but it's easy to argue in its favor. it's an emotional journey two people share together. i recently went on a date with a girl at a revival of Boogie Nights. the whole time i could feel her laughter, her emotional journey is something i felt. it is something you can feel in the person next to you. in many ways you can feel it with most everyone in the theater. we had another date with alice in wonderland and i couldn't read anything from her or the audience. the glasses simply make it less communal. For 3D to take off the way they want it too, they'll need the technology to somehow pull it off without the glasses, this will also solve the diffusion of color issue.

4. the scary truth behind 3D is that nothing gets bigger on the screen. it does not pop out of the screen at you as advertised. what 3D essentially does is utilize perspective so that the foreground stays in the same frame line while the background simply gets pushed further back. so essentially you are paying extra to see less of the movie on the screen.

The funny thing about my first (and maybe the most important) complaint is that Hollywood had the same problem in the past with new technology. before sound, the camera told the story through movement, contrast, lighting and acting. many historians believe that the introduction of sound in pictures did a disservice to narrative storytelling for years. the camera didn't tell the story for nearly a decade. "actors" simply recited the script in front of a hidden microphone. it was years and years before we saw the innovation in editing and movement that made filmmakers like Eisenstein so damn great re-emerge in theaters. If sound wasn't introduced for another ten years, imagine the quality of motion pictures we'd have in that time? perhaps an even more dangerous issue with this new technology is that Hollywood is already in the middle of another technological battle: the excess of CGI. not every movie has the quality of Avatar's glitter. most have an ugly sheen. does Hollywood need another distraction from genuine storytelling?

Ultimately, i think 3D is truly a waste. i think a more cost effective and appropriate route for both the studios and theaters to take is to shoot entire pictures on IMAX 70mm stock and then project it on real IMAX screens. the 20 minutes of The Dark Knight that was shot on IMAX was more immersible than anything the 3D of Avatar did. this stock also does something important- it doesn't offer a quick techo-fix to "immersion" the way 3D does. on the contrary, the acting, the lighting and the movement of the camera can not be taken for granted with the depth perception and focus that the 70mm stock utilizes.

I want to say 3D will fade, and i hope it does. but obviously it's presumptions to say it will or won't flourish either way, case in point- when asked if WB should start utilizing sound in their studio produced movies, Jack Warner famously replied "who the hell cares what the actors have to say?"

Back to APzombie's BLOGS