Being lucky enough to have never had to sit through a film with the old, paper 3D glasses, my view of the new 3D technology is fairly positive. Of course, I accept the fact that studios are not pushing it because they feel it is a new, integral part of filmmaking, but rather they see it as a way to raise ticket prices. I accept this, and I ignore the badly post-converted films that are currently keeping the technology from being widely accepted as having artistic merit. While many still see this as a cheap way for studios and theatre owners to make more money, the fact that high calibre filmmakers are using the technology to improve their films shows that this is not simply the gimmick that it is so often written off as.It is unfortunate, and often hard to defend, as the use of the technology has not improved since its inception several years ago. Even with films using the technology to great effect, like in Coraline and Avatar, most audiences associate the technology with films like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. These are films that were hastily post-converted, and because of this do not represent the technologies full capabilities.That being said, this is not a matter of 3D being used properly, it is more about when it is appropriate to use it. 3D is not a gimmick, rather it is a tool for filmmakers to use. It is a tool like sound, colour and aspect ratio. It is something that filmmakers must decide upon, and choose how to use it to improve their films. It is not something that studios should be forcing on filmmakers, as that just leads to badly shot films that have no reason to be in 3D except the higher ticket price.At times, James Cameron’s comments about the use of his technology may come off as over-the-top, yet it makes sense why he is so defensive. He spent years not only developing the technology, but selling it to studios and theatre owners. It is something that he spearheaded as he sees it as the future of cinema, something which it has yet to live up to. However, it is not his fault. It is the fault of the studios and their willingness to release insufficient quality 3D. With more and more talented and respected filmmakers taking up the technology for artistic reasons, we may see this technology finally be accepted as a tool rather than a gimmick.In the next year alone, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Peter Jackson will be using the format voluntarily to the benefit of their films. And if these filmmakers are unable to prove that the format is more than simply a money grabbing scheme, then I am unsure who can. If used correctly, it is not distracting, but engaging. In Cameron’s Avatar, the 3D was not used to throw things at the audience, it was used to immerse the audience in the world that he was trying to create. In the stop motion fairy tale, Coraline, the 3D was used to add a depth to the screen that allowed the film to feel like a puppet show. If this is the goal that other filmmakers have when using the technology, we may finally see it reach its potential.This is a technology that should not be used on all films but rather something to be decided upon by the filmmaker and his team. The technology is in its early stages, and because of that, it has yet to be perfected. I doubt that the technology will just wither and die as so many have predicted. But I do hope that studios will realize that audiences don’t want 3D, they want films that use it well.
Hey, some good points observations. But for me 3D has not been anything special. Okay having to wear 3D glasses on top of prescription ones is a pain, but even other than that it’s been just okay nothing WOW. Also i find the objects being thrown at the audience more engaging. So yeah till the technology enhances maybe 10 fold I’m not for it… Yet!
It’s rare to hear a postive opinion on 3D nowadays so this was a very interesting read.
I thought Daniel was mostly spot on but I find it hard to enjoy 3D when it’s used unironically. I enjoyed Avatar and Caroline but I didn’t enjoy them any more in 2D than 3D.
Maybe I’m wrong and The Hobbit will rip my argument to shreds like so many poor goblins, but until then I’m happy to be skeptical.
Isn’t the future of 3-D in documentary? Wim Wenders said that 3-D, “Can make us discover our planet and its people in an immediate and gripping way.” That is where the potential is with 3-D, in it’s ability to immerse an audience in a landscape. It’s what Werner Herzog tries to do in Cave of Forgotten Dreams.
Of course you’re right, 3-D is a tool for a filmmaker but so far, in fiction films, it has almost exclusively been used as an irrelevant add-on. Your point about immersion in Avatar ties in to what I said above. The good moments in Avatar are when we’re moving through the landscapes. I disagree with your point about the 3-D adding depth in Coraline. 2-D has been doing a perfectly fine job of creating the illusion of depth for many centuries.
The Hobbit is going to be a very interesting film in terms of 3D since we haven’t seen something like this shot native. You could say Avatar, but since a majority of that film was CGI, this is going to be unique. Not to mention the fact the film is being shot in 48 frames per second, I think The Hobbit is going to be the film to change many minds!
3D makes a film look fantastic, avatar proved that, the depth of field, the image, and it brings charactors to life, caroline also proved this for me, and we are at a stage where, we can have a full 2 hour experience, seeing brilliant images, and of course the odd gimmick point out of screen moment which is fun. the problem is, so many are mistreating this great new technology. final destination, saw, clash of the titans all examples and why james cameron should be pissed off. they just disregard everything about it. jackass 3d ?, what was the point, yes the movie stunt part at beginning and end were fantastic, but then you have over a hour of normal non 3d, thats not right. so for me the real future of 3d is, hopefully what scorsese will do with his film, 2 hours of wonderful images put on screen. heres hoping
Being lucky enough to have never had to sit through a film with the old, paper 3D glasses, my view of the new 3D technology is fairly positive. Of course, I accept the fact that studios are not pushing it because they feel it is a new, integral part of filmmaking, but rather they see it as a way to raise ticket prices. I accept this, and I ignore the badly post-converted films that are currently keeping the technology from being widely accepted as having artistic merit. While many still see this as a cheap way for studios and theatre owners to make more money, the fact that high calibre filmmakers are using the technology to improve their films shows that this is not simply the gimmick that it is so often written off as.It is unfortunate, and often hard to defend, as the use of the technology has not improved since its inception several years ago. Even with films using the technology to great effect, like in Coraline and Avatar, most audiences associate the technology with films like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. These are films that were hastily post-converted, and because of this do not represent the technologies full capabilities.That being said, this is not a matter of 3D being used properly, it is more about when it is appropriate to use it. 3D is not a gimmick, rather it is a tool for filmmakers to use. It is a tool like sound, colour and aspect ratio. It is something that filmmakers must decide upon, and choose how to use it to improve their films. It is not something that studios should be forcing on filmmakers, as that just leads to badly shot films that have no reason to be in 3D except the higher ticket price.At times, James Cameron’s comments about the use of his technology may come off as over-the-top, yet it makes sense why he is so defensive. He spent years not only developing the technology, but selling it to studios and theatre owners. It is something that he spearheaded as he sees it as the future of cinema, something which it has yet to live up to. However, it is not his fault. It is the fault of the studios and their willingness to release insufficient quality 3D. With more and more talented and respected filmmakers taking up the technology for artistic reasons, we may see this technology finally be accepted as a tool rather than a gimmick.In the next year alone, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Peter Jackson will be using the format voluntarily to the benefit of their films. And if these filmmakers are unable to prove that the format is more than simply a money grabbing scheme, then I am unsure who can. If used correctly, it is not distracting, but engaging. In Cameron’s Avatar, the 3D was not used to throw things at the audience, it was used to immerse the audience in the world that he was trying to create. In the stop motion fairy tale, Coraline, the 3D was used to add a depth to the screen that allowed the film to feel like a puppet show. If this is the goal that other filmmakers have when using the technology, we may finally see it reach its potential.This is a technology that should not be used on all films but rather something to be decided upon by the filmmaker and his team. The technology is in its early stages, and because of that, it has yet to be perfected. I doubt that the technology will just wither and die as so many have predicted. But I do hope that studios will realize that audiences don’t want 3D, they want films that use it well.
Hey, some good points observations. But for me 3D has not been anything special. Okay having to wear 3D glasses on top of prescription ones is a pain, but even other than that it’s been just okay nothing WOW. Also i find the objects being thrown at the audience more engaging. So yeah till the technology enhances maybe 10 fold I’m not for it… Yet!
It’s rare to hear a postive opinion on 3D nowadays so this was a very interesting read.
I thought Daniel was mostly spot on but I find it hard to enjoy 3D when it’s used unironically. I enjoyed Avatar and Caroline but I didn’t enjoy them any more in 2D than 3D.
Maybe I’m wrong and The Hobbit will rip my argument to shreds like so many poor goblins, but until then I’m happy to be skeptical.
“Okay having to wear 3D glasses on top of prescription ones is a pain”
Yup, forget about that.
Isn’t the future of 3-D in documentary? Wim Wenders said that 3-D, “Can make us discover our planet and its people in an immediate and gripping way.” That is where the potential is with 3-D, in it’s ability to immerse an audience in a landscape. It’s what Werner Herzog tries to do in Cave of Forgotten Dreams.
Of course you’re right, 3-D is a tool for a filmmaker but so far, in fiction films, it has almost exclusively been used as an irrelevant add-on. Your point about immersion in Avatar ties in to what I said above. The good moments in Avatar are when we’re moving through the landscapes. I disagree with your point about the 3-D adding depth in Coraline. 2-D has been doing a perfectly fine job of creating the illusion of depth for many centuries.
The Hobbit is going to be a very interesting film in terms of 3D since we haven’t seen something like this shot native. You could say Avatar, but since a majority of that film was CGI, this is going to be unique. Not to mention the fact the film is being shot in 48 frames per second, I think The Hobbit is going to be the film to change many minds!
3D makes a film look fantastic, avatar proved that, the depth of field, the image, and it brings charactors to life, caroline also proved this for me, and we are at a stage where, we can have a full 2 hour experience, seeing brilliant images, and of course the odd gimmick point out of screen moment which is fun. the problem is, so many are mistreating this great new technology. final destination, saw, clash of the titans all examples and why james cameron should be pissed off. they just disregard everything about it. jackass 3d ?, what was the point, yes the movie stunt part at beginning and end were fantastic, but then you have over a hour of normal non 3d, thats not right. so for me the real future of 3d is, hopefully what scorsese will do with his film, 2 hours of wonderful images put on screen. heres hoping