3-D revolution is coming right at you, literally
By: Luke Bretscher
Issue date: 2/26/10 Section: Features
The 3-D revolution has begun in Hollywood. Dating back nearly 50 years, 3-D technology is nothing new. But with the introduction of digital stereoscopic technology, the headaches and blur have been virtually eliminated.
This time, it is likely that 3-D will be permanent. Sony has announced a line of 3-D LCD televisions and Blu-ray players that will be on the market this year; ESPN's 3-D station launches in June; and Avatar, described by box office analyst Jeff Bock as "The holy grail of 3-D," has grossed over a half-billion dollars more than any other film in history only nine weeks after its release.
I must admit, I was skeptical of this "game-changer." My exposure had been Disney Land at age 6 and Robert Rodriguez's atrocities "Spy Kids 3-D" and "Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D" (and no, Taylor Lautner couldn't act then, either). Even Robert Zemeckis' performance-capture attempts in "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf" did nothing to quell my fear that film was being killed off by Hollywood.
But when I saw Disney-Pixar's "Up," my rigid, traditionalist thought-process began to soften. Shortly thereafter, James Cameron changed cinema forever by transporting audiences four light-years away, to Pandora. I was converted, and I was fully willing to accept a third dimension into my cinematic experience.
The beauty of a well-shot 3-D film is in the subtlety. It shouldn't seem garish or contrived, but rather tangible. 3-D is meant to aid in transporting you to a new world, which is exactly what both Cameron and Pixar set out to do. The shots were so well-crafted and expertly-framed that at times it was easy to forget it was only rendered in 3-D. The filmmakers knew that 3-D is meant to enhance the experience, not make it.
Now, almost exactly two months later, I am again not so sure. The beauty of what I saw already seems to be disappearing. I recently caught a trailer for Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and cringed. Burton is a genius and crafts some of the most visually beautiful modern films. But the trailer looked campy in 2-D. It was obvious that Burton had made the movie for 3-D, as every shot had objects flying directly at the camera: Hats, swords, birds, spears, clothes, the Cheshire Cat, clocks, chairs, saliva, cups, etc. Everything was made to "pop-out." It was not subtle at all and seemed so artificial. These kinds of 3-D films look terrible in the 2-D format.
This time, it is likely that 3-D will be permanent. Sony has announced a line of 3-D LCD televisions and Blu-ray players that will be on the market this year; ESPN's 3-D station launches in June; and Avatar, described by box office analyst Jeff Bock as "The holy grail of 3-D," has grossed over a half-billion dollars more than any other film in history only nine weeks after its release.
I must admit, I was skeptical of this "game-changer." My exposure had been Disney Land at age 6 and Robert Rodriguez's atrocities "Spy Kids 3-D" and "Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D" (and no, Taylor Lautner couldn't act then, either). Even Robert Zemeckis' performance-capture attempts in "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf" did nothing to quell my fear that film was being killed off by Hollywood.
But when I saw Disney-Pixar's "Up," my rigid, traditionalist thought-process began to soften. Shortly thereafter, James Cameron changed cinema forever by transporting audiences four light-years away, to Pandora. I was converted, and I was fully willing to accept a third dimension into my cinematic experience.
The beauty of a well-shot 3-D film is in the subtlety. It shouldn't seem garish or contrived, but rather tangible. 3-D is meant to aid in transporting you to a new world, which is exactly what both Cameron and Pixar set out to do. The shots were so well-crafted and expertly-framed that at times it was easy to forget it was only rendered in 3-D. The filmmakers knew that 3-D is meant to enhance the experience, not make it.
Now, almost exactly two months later, I am again not so sure. The beauty of what I saw already seems to be disappearing. I recently caught a trailer for Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and cringed. Burton is a genius and crafts some of the most visually beautiful modern films. But the trailer looked campy in 2-D. It was obvious that Burton had made the movie for 3-D, as every shot had objects flying directly at the camera: Hats, swords, birds, spears, clothes, the Cheshire Cat, clocks, chairs, saliva, cups, etc. Everything was made to "pop-out." It was not subtle at all and seemed so artificial. These kinds of 3-D films look terrible in the 2-D format.
Be the first to comment on this story