3-D London Vistas
In her story about a theoretical economic revival that could happen if Hollywood invests big-time in 3D features, London Times reporter Dalya Alberge writes that “the latest 3-D technology boasts an unsurpassed clarity, making audiences feel that they are in the picture.” That’s blather. 3D is more developed these days than it was in the ’50s, but I’ve never seen 3D footage that wasn’t marred by some glitch aspect…blurring around the edges, ghosting, headaches. Alberge doesn’t say what she specifically means by “latest 3-D technology” but if she’s referring to the the process of creating 3D images out of flat images (the process behind the 3D IMAX prints of Superman Returns), the images are obviously grabby but they aren’t fully “there” yet. Titanic director and 3D proponent James Cameron, who spoke to Alberge for the piece, emphasized this when he said “I’m not a big fan of the dimensionalising process. If you√ɬ¢√¢‚Äö¬¨√¢‚Äû¬¢re making a film now, just shoot it in 3-D — not as an afterthought.”
Anyone who’s seen Cameron’s 3D IMAX films knows the difference between real, in-camera 3D and “dimensionalising” is HUGE. I’m not sure where The Polar Express fits into this — as it was made entirely on computers — but The Polar Express was mind-blowing on par with the Cameron IMAX movies (even thought the movie itself sucked). Anyway, I thought the 3D in old movies like Friday the 13th 3D was better than the 3D in Superman Returns, largely because shots in true 3D films are designed to emphasize the process and its strengths. Don’t underestimate 3D, Jeff.
I think that you’re spot on, Jeff! 3-D isn’t going to revitalize theatre going. However, Director’s Hall seating for every screen just might.
The movies basically suck these days, and if I’m going to fall asleep, then at least let me fall asleep in comfort.
I think it’s wishful thinking on Cameron’s part. Isn’t he the one that was advocating a tiered admission price system to pay for huge blockbusters? 3D is just another gimmick, no matter how good it looks. (And if you’ve seen the IMAX space station movie, you know it can be very, very good.)
CGI is so good now that the novelty has worn off and photorealism isn’t enough any more. SFX no longer have much of a “gee whiz” factor because the question of “how’d they do that?” is almost always answered “with computers.” As they always have, movies still have to deliver something new, or something familiar in a new and interesting way. SFX don’t work as well any more, so the twists have to come in the story or the acting. 3D may affect that equation for a little while, but then we’ll be back where we are now.