So, today, after much delay, Jen and I found ourselves with an open day. The first time we've really felt like we had a completely free day, so we went ahead and decided to see Harry potter again, this time in Imax 3d!
Unfortunately, I have trouble shutting off the ole' brain, so I spent some time making observations on 3d movies. First of all, those things are stupidly expensive, too expensive, in my mind, to justify the advantages. Then there's the big issue I have with 3d, which is going to take a bit more explanation.
The way I look at it, there are two types of 3d elements. First of all, there's the most identifiable type of 3d moment, the "In your face" aspect of 3d. This is of course, the most prominent element, and the most enjoyable sort. Okay, I should clarify that last statement. I personally like a blend of both elements, but when something reaches out and snaps at your face, that's the moment when you feel that it's 3d.
The other type of 3d element is the subtle one. The subtle one is what gives everything the true depth, the layers of background, characters and foreground. this element is what really gives 3d the feeling of wholeness.
My issue with 3d is this: I don't think anybody is doing it right. There are a few points to be made about this. One, when the in-your face elements are overused, you feel like the 3d is a gimmick. If, on the other hand, the entire movie is done only with the depth element, you will eventually tune it out, and not really get your money's worth.
Another problem with 3d (yeah, I thought it was two, but now the ball is rolling, so strap in!) is that people are not making movies with 3d in mind. Most of the movies being released in 3d are not created in native 3d, they're being modified into 3d in post-production. What ends up happening (and did happen in harry potter) is that sometimes the movie, the 3d ends up looking like a bad green-screen element. At one point in the movie, Neville sits up right into the camera, filling most of the frame. Meanwhile, because of the 3d editing, neville has been pulled into a foreground level, with oddly sharp edges between himself and the background, like he has been superimposed onto it.
Finally, on the point of people not making movies specifically with 3d in mind, is focus. In traditional movies, when the director wants you to change depth of field, he shifts the focus of the camera. Often, this is used in a situation where, for example, two characters are having a conversation in the background, while something rests, blurry, in the foreground. Suddenly, the conversation shifts, and with it, the focus, revealing that the blurry mass is actually a gun. Dun Dun DUN! However, in 3d movies, the whole point is to create the illusion that the viewer is in a truly 3d location, which means that their eyes, and not a camera, are in charge of focus. Trying to create the illusion of three-dimensions, without the element of focal control, ruins the illusion entirely. In real life, we can focus our eyes to look at the pistol, and not wait for the camera, but 3d movies don't allow us that.
Now that I have rambled for a day, I'd like to say that really, the problem with 3d isn't that it is inherently bad, rather, that 3d is like a gun, it's dangerous in the wrong hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment