3D Is Exciting But Not Appropriate For All Films

Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter Print this article

NotAllFilmsShouldbe3D.gif

As a filmmaker the question I am most asked is; will my next film be filmed in 3D? To be honest I'm astonished by this question for I really only have one film to my name and while I'm gearing up for my second I'm still just trying to get my bearings as it pertains to the technology I chose to use when making a movie; 4K. Though, despite my relative inexperience, people still want to know how I feel about 3D. I recently had a conversation with the president of a major theater chain regarding this very topic. I'm going to paraphrase but the gentleman told me that if I were to film Dancing Carl (my next film) in 3D he'd be more apt to book me on a greater number of screens. Sounds good, at least to an independent filmmaker like myself however I had to respond by saying, when I feel that I can use 3D as a story telling tool then I'll use it but I don't simply want to film in 3D for the sake of 3D.

Case in point, I recently screened the latest Pixar movie Up in both 3D and non 3D and I have to admit, Up didn't need to be released in 3D. I'm not going to discuss the merits of the film as a whole, but simply look at the reasoning behind releasing it in 3D. Let's face it, 3D is Hollywood's version of Moses come down from the mountain top for it is going to re-energize audiences to want to return to the theaters. This is true, I guess, but I'd argue that good movies or event movies will energize audience to want to sit in a theater not a gimmick like 3D.

Up did not benefit in anyway, in my opinion, by being shown in 3D, in fact, I quite enjoyed the non-3D version of the film more. In 3D, Up was nauseating at times and once you get past the first few balloons flying towards your face the effect gets somewhat old and cumbersome for there are limits to what 3D can do. First of all, for 3D to be successful (in its current form) your field of vision has to remain fairly still for the effect to be convincing, which can be frustrating not to mention tiresome. Secondly, for me, it creates a sort of diorama like effect where by there is an extreme foreground, middle and background but never shall the three meet, which is weird to sit through for 90 minutes. Lastly, at least with the film Up, a large portion of the film wasn't even in 3D and could be viewed without the glasses proving to me that this "effect" was an after thought versus an artistic decision.

In comparison, viewing Up in its non 3D form was a far more engaging and rewarding experience, not to mention cheaper in terms of ticket prices. The image was absolutely stunning and the clarity and color was a sight to behold something the 3D version is robbed of. While cinematography is not often discussed with CG movies Up proved to be one of the most beautifully shot films I've seen in a long while. The whole film had a very classic, old school feel (as did the story) and it's an aspect of the film I missed out on via the 3D technology. While the 3D version had artificial "depth" the traditional version had real depth and when projected digitally (in my theater) the image itself felt more dimensional and real than the 3D version did.

Now, I'm not going to be an old curmudgeon and say 3D is a fad or that the world doesn't need 3D. I'm simply saying not every film needs to be 3D. I know it's all the rage at the moment and seemingly every film that can be made to be 3D is, but I think, like any Hollywood gimmick, time will temper people's excitement and 3D will be used more judiciously if not more artistically. I absolutely think 3D has a purpose in filmmaking and I don't want to see it go away, I just feel it needs to be viewed as a story telling device versus another way for studios and theaters to charge you an extra two to five dollars for your ticket without giving you two to five dollars worth of added enjoyment.

At the end of the day audiences become immersed in good story telling, which Up has in spades, not in gimmicks. If Hollywood would focus more on getting back to telling solid stories and not finding new and interesting ways of inducing seizures from their audience people may be more apt to return to the theaters. Going to a movie theater is supposed to be special however films are becoming less and less special competing with themselves in an endless battle for our YouTube span attentions. Fewer movies made to higher standards that engage audiences more of the time is what Hollywood needs. Do that and then let's look at what 3D brings to the table.

  • Comment on this article

  • By Ken Taraszka, MD

I don't know that 3D has any association with inducing seizures. Seizure induction seems to be related to low frequency 'flashing' (7 Hz seems to be one of the most inductive frequencies) and can induce seizures in those who've never had them before or since as was proven by a Japanese cartoon recently.

I have to agree with you on the 3D thing, movies are costly enough without adding several MORE dollars per person for gimmicks...

  • By Andrew Robinson

With regards to seizures I was eluding to current style of most Hollywood summer movies where the action is cut so fast the image literally strobes. I'm not sure if this technique actually causes seizures, though I have seen it make people sick.

  • By Anonymous

I wish it was only $2-5 more per ticket for 3D! I picked a time to see up with a friend, not knowing there was 3D and non-3D showings, and spent $15 on a matinee ticket. Completely agree with your assessment that the effect seemed an afterthought and was not integral (or helpful) in telling the story. In fact, the diorama effect was distracting.

  • By Dave Cardwell

Your opinion is noted but your hardly a film buff. As a film graduate, actor and general movie freak I completely disagree. Its a matter of realism and we all benifit from the experience. 3D is granted better suited to action films rather than a dinner for two in a drama flic but come on its not a fad. I think personally and with all due respect your knowledge, experiance is epitomized by the photo of the old style 3D glasses in this article. The technology is far beyond that technology and quite a wonderfull experience. Perhaps you should watch a movie like "Journey to the center of the earth" in 3D and try and explain how much the 3D effect was a waste of time..

  • By Dave

My brain doesn't process the 3D information in movies well. Over the years I have watched several movies in 3D, and for me the image always suffers and I get a headache and eyestrain before the movie is over. At times I've removed the glasses and just closed my eyes for awhile. If it's up to me I don't watch 3D movies at all.

  • By James

I would really like to holographic technology before I would see 3-D. Now that would be worth paying for.

  • By Lee

For Dave and others,
I agree with Dave Cardwell. The image quality, as well as the color, is night and day when comparing new 3D to the old blue/red 3D of the past. Dave, if you haven't seen one of the newer films using the polarized lenses (the glasses look like regular sunglasses from the Risky Business era) then you should definitely give it a try.
Admittedly, not all 3D movies are of equal quality (image quality). The aforementioned Journey to the Center of the Earth was good, but probably the worst I have seen! To have seen movies like Coraline, Up, and even My Bloody Valentine 3D, can give you great examples of the new technology.
Note to all: Please do not expect the BluRay and DVD releases to be the same as the movie theater 3D. Currently, these home releases still use the old school blue and red glasses, and as a result they look old school, nothing like they do in the theater. So far, the animated movies seem to be incorporating the best use of the 3D technology, so I would advise anyone who hasn't yet experienced it to check out an animated movie first.

My question is, when will we get the polarized tech in the home? Quite a few projectors are now capable, and Mitsubishi is traveling the country showcasing their new 3D HDTV. When I asked the rep, he said unfortunately the movie has to be recorded in 3D, the TV has to be able to reproduce it, and the player the movie is played on must support the format. So, it'll be a while. :0(

  • By Andrew Robinson

Dave,

You're entitled to disagree, however, your assumption that everyone enjoys 3D or that I watched Up through "old school" 3D glasses is wrong. I viewed the film through polarized lenses (as Lee states in his comment) and the effect was less than involving.

I have seen "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and must admit I didn't care for the 3D in that film either, for I felt it was the most egregious misuse of 3D for none of it propelled the storytelling. A shot of a boy spinning a yo-yo in my face is hardly what I would call enriching and/or providing me with an emotional experience beyond what traditional 2D films already provide.

Furthermore, I never stated that 3D was a fad, what I said was, I wasn't going to be one of those anti-change film aficionados that claim 3D is a fad. Lastly, the image chosen to accompany this article was not specified by me and I think was chosen because it is an iconic image representative of how people remember or think of 3D. Is it correct or current, no, but never the less it's a universal symbol for 3D.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Andrew

  • By John Koval

Andrew,

This is more a question than comment. I have no experience but was under the impression that 3D would be viewed with some kind of wireless electronic glasses. It appears that you used no such glasses. What's up??

John

  • By Andrew Robinson

John,

As cool as it sounds, viewing 3D through electronic glasses, most 3D glasses are nothing more than specialized polarized glasses. They do look a bit "Risky Business" and aren't entirely comfortable for long periods of time but work none the less.

I really think 3D will come into its own when glasses are no longer required and audiences can view true stereoscopic imaging. This technology is being worked on in the home markets i.e. LCD's, Plasmas etc but is still a ways off from being perfected. Right now stereoscopic 3D has a very limited viewing angle so you have to basically lock your head in a vice for the effect to be convincing.

The best demo of stereoscopic 3D I've seen to date is about a minute and a half of the film "Titanic" however, like traditional 3D there's still a disconnect between foreground and background elements and it does exhibit a bit of transparent flicker. It will get there I have no doubt but it's definitely a work in progress.

Andrew

  • By Helen

I found similar information about 3D Ready and movies on www.3D-News.net (not my website)
This may help people looking for information on the topic.

Post a Comment

You are encouraged to post your comments using Facebook on HomeTheaterReview.com. Simply sign in to your Facebook account below and post away.

Featured Audio-Video News

The Evolution of the Two-Channel Preamp

The Evolution of the Two-Channel Preamp -

The two-channel preamp has been due for an overhaul for a while now and it seems that the process is beginning with several of the new products hitting the market from several of the major manufacturers. But why is it happening now?

Latest Movie News

Sony Launches DVD On Demand Service - Screen Classics By Request -

Jonesing for some of your favorite old films that have never been released on DVD? Sony Pictures Home Entertainment is delving into the Columbia Pictures vault (Sony owns Columbia, one of its theatrical distribution arms) to bring forth movie classics of yore.