Will there come a day when 2D films are virtually non existent?
More and more frequently, the content of a film, the director or the cast is becoming less of a priority. Instead, the phrase "In mind-blowing 3D" has become the tagline norm just as much as the wit on display when marketing execs decide "Slow justice is no justice" is fitting for the 2D fare. I, as should all of us, blame James Cameron.
As innocent as Cameron's effect on cinema may have been, thanks to him and Avatar , not only was it proven 3D is an alphanumeric acronym for "Show me the money!" but it also brought along the idea 3D wasn't simply a tool for less-imaginative helmers. And by the way, I think Cameron realizes this .
Would Martin Scorsese have ever said , "Why couldn't a film like Precious be in 3D? It should be," if it wasn't for Avatar ? Scorsese's statement was made in early March 2010, right around the time Avatar was approaching $706 million and days before Alice in Wonderland would begin its own run to $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales. Anyone care to argue he was touting the effect My Bloody Valentine or Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience had on him when he made that statement?
Shortly thereafter it was confirmed Scorsese's next film, Hugo Cabret , would be in 3D. Thus validating 3D as a filmmaking gimmick no longer exclusive to James Cameron and a fleet of B-level directors.
Peter Jackson will film both The Hobbit and its sequel in 3D, Marc Webb is doing the same with the Untitled Spider-Man Reboot and Bryan Singer just announced he'll be filming Jack the Giant Killer in 3D in a statement at the RED user forums saying:
"I'm very much looking forward to using the EPIC Red for my next movie Jack the Giant Killer which will be shot in, what else, 3D . The camera's incredibly compact size and extraordinary resolution are ideal for the 3D format. But more importantly Jack the Giant Killer is my first movie set in a time before electricity. The EPIC's extraordinary exposure latitude will allow me to more effectively explore the use of natural light."
The part that rubs me the wrong way about that statement from Singer is the "what else". He probably means "what else" because he's confirming the use of a 3D camera, but I can't help but also get a definitely not that lousy 2D vibe from it, because that is the answer to "what else".
Personally, I still prefer 2D to 3D and avoid 3D at all costs when it comes to paying to see movies. Other than the time I paid to see Piranha 3D in order to review it, I have never paid for a 3D film out of my own pocket, though I have paid to see a film I originally saw in 3D a second time in 2D.
I was thankful this past weekend when I went to see Tangled for a second time and upon arriving at the theater found out it was screening in 2D rather than 3D. This not only made for a more comfortable screening, but a cheaper one. However, as someone that is not in any way a fan of 3D movies I guess if I'm going to be forced to watch these movies in 3D I may as well be comfortable doing it.
To the right are my own personal Oakley 3D GASCAN glasses, which were given to me as a Christmas gift this year. They were a perfect gift, seeing how I would never buy them for myself, but can't we all admit it would be nice to have our own comfortable 3D glasses rather than the horn-rimmed jobs theaters hand out now?
Not only are these about one thousand-times more comfortable, they are also far more sanitary. I'm not sure if you remember reading about this, but back in June the Good Housekeeping Research Institute tested seven pairs of standard, dish-washed movie theater 3D glasses and found a number of germs, including those causing conjunctivitis, skin infections, food poisoning, sepsis and pneumonia. One was even contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus , the most common cause of staph infections.
Also, along with being cleaner and more comfortable, these Oakley glasses much larger lenses, removing more of the lens frame from my field of vision. My first test with them will bein early January so I'm interested in seeing if there's much of a difference.
Sanitation aside, even I am willing to admit these Oakley glasses are still a luxury and not a necessity. Anyone concerned with the germs and diseases that come associated with watching movies in 3D could just bring a wet-nap to the theater. The question is just how often will someone have to do this moving forward?
The following video (via /F ) is a mashup of 37 different movie trailers promoting their 3D films, getting to the heart of what I was referring to in my opening. I'm just beginning to wonder if two years from now we'll be seeing trailers saying, "Giving your eyes a rest with non-digital 2D"?
One can only wonder.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment