From cassette tapes to iPods, PCs to Macbooks, DVDs to Blu-ray discs, technology seems to evolve as frequently as Lady Gaga changes her wardrobe.
Our tech-savvy American culture has a powerful attachment to the products and innovations that emerge as our collective mind seeks to discover more efficient ways of living and experiencing.
This could explain the resurgence of the 3-D film in multiplexes around the globe.
The prospect of having an enhanced viewing experience screams dollar signs. When films of this nature are made as proficiently as James Cameron’s “Avatar,” the advancement seems necessary.
However, with the new wave of lackluster 3-D films released over the last few years, this added feature appears to be an overt marketing ploy for studios looking to cash in on the current craze.
The difference is a film like “Avatar” was designed for 3-D. It demonstrated with vivid artistry and meticulous detail the illusion of depth.
These qualities allowed audiences to be drawn in and enveloped by the space on screen. Whereas, the film’s recent successors— “Megamind,” “The Green Hornet,” “Clash of the Titans,” etc. — cheapen this effect due to the studio’s decision to quickly convert the films to 3-D in post production.
Take the insufferable “The Last Airbender.” Here’s a film that attempted with disastrous results to use 3-D as a diversion from its terrible direction. The film was barely tolerable in 2-D, and the additional dimension only magnified its lack of cohesion.
Similarly, the latest installment in the “Saw” franchise used 3-D as a marketing tool by suggesting that the severed limbs of the victims on screen would be thrown at audience members. This modification directed viewers’ attention away from the screen rather than allowing them to have a connection with the images on it.
Many of the films converted to 3-D in post production are perfectly adequate in their original format. The result is often a film with changes that are too subtle or barely visible.
When the changes are apparent, the hurried alterations often dim colors that were once rich and vivid and make the visual focus of each film ambiguous. Such was the case with “Toy Story 3,” a great film on its own terms, undermined in exchange for a surcharge on viewers’ movie tickets.
It seems the studios are less focused on quality and more concerned with profit. This is not to suggest that 3-D films are some kind of bad fad. In fact, many of them are made efficiently. However, when studios dish out inferior products in the name of a buck, it ultimately diminishes the appeal.
Just as not every novel needs to be adapted into a feature film, not every film needs to inherit an extra dimension.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment