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
