3D – The Future of Film?
By Matt Baker Feb. 25, 2009
Maybe not, but I think it has been unfairly maligned by many people, some of whom I actually respect (although if they insist on disagreeing with me about too many more things I may have to rethink this respect business). The main argument against 3D technology is that it is just a novelty, and there is some basis to this. But let’s not forget that there was a time when the moving pictures were just a novelty. Fortunately for all of us some brilliant minds realized its potential to change the way people interact with stories. Now, I’m not trying to put 3D technology on the level of the invention of the motion picture, I’m just saying that things are only novelties when they are new (duh), or at least before someone takes them seriously (after all, 3D technology is not really new, it has existed in one form or another since the 1890s, with the first 3D movie shown to paying audiences being The Power of Love in 1922).
I think the time has come to start taking 3D seriously. Up until now most people’s experience with 3D movies came from stupid amusement park rides where stuff is constantly flying at your face (I have to say though, I did love the 3D Spongebob ride at Canada’s Wonderland). Unfortunately that is what 3D movies are still leaning towards, but the times they are-a changing. Admittedly I have only seen three “modern” 3D movies (Beowulf, My Bloody Valentine, and Coraline) but with each one the 3D is used more and more effectively.
Beowulf just kind of sucked all around and had so much of the “ooh, I’m 3D, look at this stuff fly at your face” crap that is was quite distracting. So many of the shots were clearly designed to be 3D that I think it would be difficult to watch in 2D. My Bloody Valentine wasn’t as bad. I can imagine comfortably watching it as a 2D movie, but I did get tired of the pick-axes in the eye. It also felt like they spent so much of their budget on making it 3D that they ignored the rest of the special effects. When a guy’s jaw gets ripped off and flung at the viewer it just looks like a flying reddish-brown lump. Disappointing. These are the “novelty” shots that people remember and that is too bad because they are everything that is bad about 3D and only serve to pull the viewer out of the movie.
Where 3D has its real promise is its ability to pull the viewer in to the world of the movie. The best 3D shots in My Bloody Valentine were when the camera pans across a street, or when a character walks off screen and it feels as though they are walking past you. Beowulf didn’t really do this at all, but with Coraline you can tell filmmakers are starting to catch on. While there were still a couple “stuff-coming-out-of-the-screen” shots, they were much more organic and not nearly so jarring (and the kiddies loved them – the oohs and ahhs of the children around us were great). Mostly you just felt as though you were looking at the actual, tangible characters. Like you were in the forest, or crawling through the tunnel with Coraline. And that is what 3D should be.
I think with all the 3D movies scheduled to come out in the next year or two we will start seeing more of this (although I’m sure there will be lots of novelty crap too). In particular I am looking forward to James Cameron’s Avatar. He has always been able to use technology to its fullest potential and has been working on this for so long that I think he realizes what 3D should actually do for a movie. Robert Zemeckis, thanks for showing us that modern 3D is a viable technology, but your movies still feel like novelty. Stand aside and let’s see what James can do.
PS. I really am thankful to Robert Zemeckis for re-pioneering this technology. Hopefully his next movies will not be so gimmicky. I don’t want to seem too snarky here.