THE BIG DEBATE. 3D

3D is on the horizon, the new form of cinema is expected to become a huge phenomenom in the next few years. James Cameron's Avatar which is said to be revolutionising cinema and changing the face of film as we know it, is going to be released this year. So far this year we have seen a variety of 3D digimation, most recently Zemeckis' retooling of A Christmas Carol. Here's the big question, is it really needed? Does 3D do anything to improve a film. Did Up really need to be in 3D? Was Coraline vastly improved by the 3D immersiveness? Was My Bloody Valentine anymore terrifying because the offle could now fly over the audience? and the crucial question, can 3D improve so called modern classics, did Toy Story or Nightmare Before Christmas benefit from having an added dimension?

My answer to all 4 questions: No.

Discuss. Is 3D the way forward in cinema?

I don't think it's really important whether or not we need it as such, I think it's more that the people who go to the pictures to be entertained for an afternoon - the majority - want to see a film in 3D, and therefore it's only right that it should happen.
As far as the visuals go, Christmas Carol was amazing anyway, and the 3D only improved this by giving it literally more depth, and Zemekis uses this to great effect. There are some scenes in it which are frankly beautiful, and this is something which I found in Up. Both films had breathtaking scenery and lighting effects, and in 3D these were only improved upon, though perhaps Christmas Carol uses it a bit better, but then Zemekis has been working with 3D for a lot longer than Pixar (though I am not saying the 3D in Up was poor at all - far from it).

I haven't seen Coraline or My Bloody Valentine, so I couldn't say whether or not it was improved in 3D or not, but I don't think it's as simple as a yes or no answer to any of your questions. It has its good and bad points, and in some films the good outwieghs the bad points of the 3D, and with the improving technology including Motion Capture, there are going to be less and less problems with aching eyes and headaches.

From an artistic p.o.v., I would say that 3D is definately worthwhile, since it really heightens emotive scenes, as in Christmas Carol. In fact, this film is an indicator that Zemekis might have actually found a style to base his characters on, much like a more detailed version of Pixar's style, which hopefully means he's decided to stop going for realism in his characters, though the CGI backgrounds are pretty stunning.

Whether it will improve old films is a good question. The trailer for Toy Story 2 3D looked pretty impressive, and surprisingly not pointy-visionish. But I think it will depend from film to film. Those that are visually good will benefit, but at the same time only if they're done well. Those that aren't nice to look at will be pretty pointless in 3D, and will gain essentially no benefit other than a re-release and some more money (which I think is inevitable). Unfortunately I can see films like saw going 3D, "for an even more sadistic experience". This is clearly not a good thing since excessive violence is in most cases pointless anyway, so making it 3D is only making it even worse. But I could easily imagine Jurassic Park or Star Wars for example in 3D, and this would look very good. But then you wonder if something like NCFOM would benefit much, because while there are lots of nice vistas in it, there are few amazing effects which would be stunning in 3D, so there needs to be a balance made because 3D like anything else could spiral out of control.

It's interesting when going to the cinema I don't necessarily go there for my eyes to be wowed, I go to be challenged or I look for proper stories with good character, that for was what was appealling about Up. The visual aside it challenged its target audience, it had a great story and fantastic range of emotionally investable characters. The visual was just an added bonus and for me not improved by the 3D aspect. It seems that a film which does not have a developed narrative or characters, means that a 3D can enhance the visual experience, especially with something like A Christmas Carol. And I look forward to Avatar very much, not that I have any high hopes for it or its big headed director who I hope will fall flat on his face.

There are problems they need to solve, the dark glasses which is easy brighten up the screen. The headachy feel you get after long viewing fortunately most 3D upto this point has not been over two hours, but the feared running time of 166 mins we are getting from Cameron is fairly worrying.

The kicker for me is that 3D is not an artistic decision especially if James Cameron is backing it, it is an industry thing to halt piracy and try and get more people into the cinema during these economic times. For which I applaud it, but necessary it is not.

It doesn't matter that it's not an artistic decision though, because it is being used by Pixar and Zemekis (finally) and hopefully other good directors in a more artistic manner, and if this fits nicely with the studio's idea that it brings in more money then it's only a good thing since it means these directirs will get more opportunities. Unfortunately, this also applies to the crap out there.

bert vimes wrote:

t effect. There are some scenes in it which are frankly beautiful, and this is something which I found in Up. Both films had breathtaking scenery and lighting effects, and in 3D these were only improved upon, though perhaps Christmas Carol uses it a bit better, but then Zemekis has been working with 3D for a lot longer than Pixar (though I am not saying the 3D in Up was poor at all - far from it).

Pixar made a short film called Knick Knack in polorising 3d back in 1989 but there was know where to play it back then properly so it took until nightmare's re-release until it got a true 3d release. Zemeckis first 3d film was in 2004.

yes i am a geek :)

kabirrane wrote:

bert vimes wrote:

t effect. There are some scenes in it which are frankly beautiful, and this is something which I found in Up. Both films had breathtaking scenery and lighting effects, and in 3D these were only improved upon, though perhaps Christmas Carol uses it a bit better, but then Zemekis has been working with 3D for a lot longer than Pixar (though I am not saying the 3D in Up was poor at all - far from it).

Pixar made a short film called Knick Knack in polorising 3d back in 1989 but there was know where to play it back then properly so it took until nightmare's re-release until it got a true 3d release. Zemeckis first 3d film was in 2004.

yes i am a geek :)

thankfully you know what i mean.

Due to the expense of it, 3D will always be mainstream and as another part of the studio system allowing a new way to market films 'NOW IN 3D'; the new offbeat independant films who aren't produced by established filmmmakers (such as the Coen Brothers) will become less popular and won't make as much money and will in the end either die out or go straight to DVD. And also with only one proper filmmaker involved in 3D I can see it becoming a hack-medium.