//
you're reading...
Rants!

“To 3D or to not 3D, that is the question”

"Just because the film is 3D, doesn't mean the characters are"

So the year 2009 has come and passed with some truly amazing films shown during the lowly twelve months we call a year, but what was the biggest draw of last year? Yes that would be the increased popularity and funding by Hollywood and the subsequent studios to jump on the 3D band wagon, a sort of retro active resurgence in old technology. I have always believed that 3D was and forever shall be a marketing gimmick for the masses, ok yes they have been pushing the bar with the projections of film and mostly eradicating that annoying motion blur along with the awful blue and red hue which was ever present on the old 70’s and 80’s 3D extravaganzas. But are they really pushing the envelope much further then before, in all honesty and likelihood it seems doubtful. For if you get rid of one issue there is always another one lurking around the corner and in this modern age of 3D centric films it’s the loss of 20% (I think that is the percentage but it might be higher) of colour, which in some respects impairs the intended look of the film, particularly if said film is in high definition. But it also begs the question is it really worth the loss of colour to get a little more immersed within the film it self, my answer would be no its not. The basic 3D idea intrigues me that I could be more immersed within a film appeals to my geeky film obsessed sensibilities, but another part of me thinks what truly got me hooked in a film to begin with, what made me fall in love with the medium (and for this I thought all the way back to my first viewing of Labyrinth) and the answer was simple. It was because the story hooked me, there were no gimmicks involved the fantastical element of the land and characters draw me into their make believe world.

Now I have not yet seen Avatar and in all honesty I don’t plan to it just does not appeal to my current film sensibilities, granted it looks luscious vivid and downright gorgeous, but it looks like every other good sci-fi film before it and I don’t need 3D to enhance my viewing experience and loose some of the colour that has been lovingly crafted by the master technicians. All films are immersive in my eyes, if the film can hook me with a well crafted story, good performances with impressive use of both style and substance then that is truly a worthy viewing experience without an ounce of 3D gimmicks anywhere included.

I thus agree with Mark Kermode in this respect and disappointment in 3D, because I believe for a film to be truly immersive it needs to be embraced in the best way possible, a darkened cinema, surround sound to grasp the audio soundscape of the film and without 3D to impair the vision. So I very much agree with the good doctor:

The futures bright, the future is 2D.

Discussion

2 thoughts on ““To 3D or to not 3D, that is the question”

  1. You make some fair points – I’ve always been disappointed by the loss of brightness caused by polarisation lenses, but there is hope out there. In a few years the technology might be popular enough that we don’t need stupid glasses which block out all the light.

    I’m interested in what you say here:

    “It was because the story hooked me, there were no gimmicks involved the fantastical element of the land and characters draw me into their make believe world”

    I definitely agree – a film ain’t got nothing if it’s got no story. Although I think the line above can be used against what you’re trying to prove. Books are just as immersive as films – some people might say: why do you need the pictures at all? let alone the 3D?

    And the answer is simple (and in this, I’m agreeing with what you’re saying). When coupled with a good story, special effects and 3D can both enhance the experience.

    Posted by Marc | January 29, 2010, 1:48 am
    • Yes completely and utterly mate (although the arguement was just for film lol), nothing can ever be as immersive as book, hence why the written word has always been considered more powerful as its interpreted differerently by each individual.

      Posted by thegreatob | January 29, 2010, 9:26 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Musings of a Film Fanatic on WordPress.com
January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
%d bloggers like this: