3D technology in movies dates back to the 1920’s and really found an audience during the 1950’s. It made several reappearances often times finding and wowing audiences. But the technology is also known for it’s dissappearances as the interest fades in what some view as a fancy gimmick. Right now we are in the middle of one of those 3D waves. But have they finally gotten it right and made it a viable storytelling tool that will stick around for a while? Or has the high ticket prices and mediocre transfers already driven off movie fans?
James Cameron and “Avatar” was the movie that really brought 3D back and I have to say it impressed me more than any other previous attempt at 3D movie making. While his unoriginal, paper-thin plot and political/environmental preachiness killed “Avatar”, it was still a technical marvel and his use of 3D was a sight to behold. It was the first time I could really say the 3D grabbed me and pulled me into a movie. It wasn’t just about “pop out of the screen” moments. Cameron truly made his movie come alive with clever camera work and an amazing depth.
One of the things that made “Avatar” work visually was that from the start it was shot for 3D. It didn’t take me long to see that it makes a world of difference. Before long several post production 3D transfers started hitting theaters with noticeably lesser results. As with many things, the studios saw dollar signs and started putting out more and more of these underwhelming 3D productions. After seeing several movies where I felt ripped off by the higher prices I’ve moved back to 2D. Unless a movie is getting rave reviews for it’s 3D by other reviewers and if given the choice, I’m going with 2D.
So has this reemergence of 3D reached it’s apex and now heading downhill or is there still more on the horizon? There’s no denying that 3D has shown itself to be a very effective way to tell a story. But with so many lackluster 3D movies coming out, it seems that the technology could be doomed to fail. In a way it will be sad if it does fall by the wayside simply because it looked like they finally got it right. They simply didn’t know when enough is enough.
What are your thoughts on today’s 3D?
I personally am not a fan of it, but it seems (at least in the Netherlands) that there isn’t much choice if you want to see a specific movie as there usually isn’t a 2d version available. This situation of course gives the wrong impression that people love 3d and more movies will be released that way.
That’s a good point. Taking away your choice kinda gives a false representation of the people’s feelings.
It’s interesting, here I’ve noticed more 2D showing poppong up in my favorite theater. At one time 2D versions of big movies would be on one screen and 3D versions on four. That seems to be changing.
I LIKE is myself… but only when its done well. Not all 3D is created equal. When its really thorough and immersive, it can add a level of fun to even crappy films like Transformers 3. When it sucks, you feel ripped off.
I’d like to see the standards raised across the board.
Well said. If it’s done well it enhances the experience. But I also feel it only works on certain types of movies. For example, I don’t really want to pay a higher ticket price to see “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” in 3D.
Not a huge fan. It gives me a headache and I don’t think I’ve ever loved a film MORE because it’s been in 3D. Films are perfectly good and immersive without it but sometimes it can be pretty impressive so not totally against it either!
That another good question to ask: Has 3D ever made you like a movie more? “Avatar” may be the only movie I would say yes about. But that’s mainly due to my dislike for almost everything else about it…lol.
I have been passive agressively keeping all those 3D glasses
That’ll show them! No glasses to recycle, no more 3D! LOL!
I’m not one for 3D. I agreed with all you said, and I think it’s an overrated gimmick used on several films today only to bring in more money. However, I do think films like Avatar really made 3D work, and one of the latest films that really utilized 3D well being Hugo.
That said, I basically refuse to go see a 3D version, even if just to save a couple bucks. That, and I tend to get a headache from things popping out at me for more than 2 hours. I think 3D is better used at theme park shows, or that rare movie, like Hugo or Avatar.
Great mention of “Hugo”. I should have brought it up. It was a movie that looked really good in 3D.
I’m with you Keith, I’ve only been impressed w/ Avatar and Hugo on the 3D front, the rest are dreadful or don’t really add anything to the movie. So my feelings is I can take it or leave it. More on the ‘leave it’ side as I’d rather see a GOOD story than seeing meaningless things popping up as I watch them .