Movies in 3D

For the past couple of years, 3D technology has been spreading like a virus to most filmmakers. I’m not too certain, but the first wave of it started when James Cameron released “Avatar” in the stunningly beautiful 3D back in 2009. I’m guessing it infected most of the rest of the filmmakers, because ever since then, 95% of all feature films advertise the 3D. Sadly enough the public hasn’t been taking the bait too well.

All around me, there are negative reviews about 3D. One of my film professors asked the class, “by the raise of hands, who here likes 3D?” Naturally, I wanted to shoot up my hand like Alfred Borden did in “The Prestige.” However, noticing that 0% of the class raised their hands, I followed suit and kept my hand at bay. I was baffled at how many people despised 3D technology. The professor proceeded to ask why, and the students went about their reason of disliking 3D. Hearing them, one by one, I notice that most of them said it causes headaches and it doesn’t really add to the movie anyways.

Here is where, in my mind, I started to severely disagree with every one of them. First off, am I the only that doesn’t get a headache during a 3D movie? It seems like getting a headache is the number one reason of disliking 3D. Next comes “it doesn’t add to the movie.” I have to agree to this one, however, that doesn’t apply to all movies. Like I mentioned before, look at how successful “Avatar” did. And two years later, Michael Bay released Transformers in 3D. I saved up money to see this one in 3D, and boy was I surprised. The 3D in TF3 seemed to surpass the level of awe of “Avatar.” The beginning scene where that ship was flying through the war ridden planet, avoiding the destruction filling the screen, was so crystal clear and ACTUALLY 3D, I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Most 3D these days add depth, rather than the popping element. That’s all fine and dandy, but 3D was invented to pop from the screen. “Transformers 3” did just that. A lot of the movie was very in my face and amazing to say the least. Another thing to say about both “Avatar” and “Transformers 3” was that it was SHOT in 3D; none of that converting process. That’s why most of the movies now a days lack potential. They are all secretly converting to 3D in post-production, whereas only a handful of directors and DPs (Director of Photography) are using actual 3D cameras.

However, not all movies fail at the depth portion of the 3D element. For example when Peter Jackson did his “The Hobbit,” he shot it in 3D, avoiding the conversion at the end (props to him for that). For a movie like that, where most of the awe-inspiring scenes come from the vast and gorgeous landscape of New Zealand, adding depth to the movie suits better than adding popping elements. I really loved seeing “The Hobbit” in the High Frame Rate (HFR) 3D (I’ll do a blog about HFR too) because it seemed so beautiful, as if you where standing there yourself. The landscape seemed to recede into space instead of being limited to the concrete wall behind the movie screen.

To conclude off of the sad truth about the public not taking in 3D very well, I for one support and love 3D. I do wish to, some day, shoot a movie in 3D (and avoiding the conversion process). I feel, if done correctly, it can genuinely add something to the movie.

3D shouldn’t be used to advertise something, rather to give the audience a spectacular viewing experience at the movie theater. 

Sources: IMDb.com