Well, my recent viewing of Iron Man 3 in 3D, in addition to my compulsive researching of home cinema's lead me to a reflection of the use of 3D in modern cinema. We live in an age of money, and with showings of Avatar in 3D having unprecedented success, 3D was unceremoniously tacked on to a number of releases that were not designed nor edited with 3D in mind, leading to headaches and nauseating effects. (I'm looking at you Clash of the Titans) The 3D boom can be credited for reinvigorating the cinema industry financially and for dragging audiences back in to the theaters. Only three of the top 20 highest grossing pictures of all time were produced before 2000, and all of those have at some point had a 3D theatrical re-release.
Despite, having to some eyes pushed the focus of cinema-going back to technology and off storytelling, yet there are exceptions to this rule, for instance Toy Story 3 was as arresting and enchanting as the first two, and yet was also in 3D. I saw this film in 3D myself and found the 3D to be an enhancement, and it helped to drag the viewer into the action, rather than distract. There were recent articles reporting a viewer decline in 3D viewing trends, stating that less and less viewers are going to see 3D movies, preferring 2D content, my reasoning behind this is two fold, firstly viewers are sick and tired of the extra fee, which in some theaters can be exorbitant, and secondly, the dimness of the image, the glasses that one is obliged to wear are tinted, and thus can diminish the brightness of the image, to such an extent as it is noticeable.
3D is apparently making a big jump into our homes, yet in my eyes this remains to be seen, 3D home technology is expensive with the glasses alone costing as much as $150 apiece, much of this has to do with them using the active 3D shutter effect, i also fear that the size of a 3D television will hamper the immersiveness of the effect, and create an odd jump between the screen and the outside world, an effect that is diminished in a dark cinema. Let it also be said that there is relatively little 3D content available, with few films being released on 3D DVD and many conversion processors giving odd effects, due to a lack of ability to process the information fast enough. Overall 3D seems to be here to stay, for now anyway!
Any opinions, let the world know in the comments box below!
I hope what you say about 3D being here to stay is true. There's a lot of potential to the format that hasn't yet been employed.
ReplyDeleteIf I may nitpick, I really wish people didn't think the pinnacle of 3D achievement was to "drag the viewer into the action" though. People get stuck on this whole immersion into the story telling hype and fail to realize that 3D filmmaking is just as different from 2D filmmaking as the language of painting is different from the language of sculpture. It's amazing how many people willingly admit that movies made with the intent of being 3D from the start (The Hobbit, Avatar, Life of Pi, Hugo) do their 3D so much better, and yet never consider that there could be a reason for that other than non-nauseating stereography. 3D, when employed correctly, can evoke conscious and subconscious symbols not present in 2D cinema, and the reason that 3D cinema so often fails is that, by planning films for 2D, you lose or confuse that symbolism.
Couldn't agree more, 3D is being used as a gimmick or add on when really it requires completely different handling to 2D
Delete