Your thoughts on the increase of 3-D movies

Benson Marks · December 9, 2008

What do you think of the increase of movies that are using 3-D technology? You know, like movies such as "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" and the upcoming horror remake "My Bloody Valentine 3-D?"

IMHO, I would rather see movies in 2-D like we almost always have since the creation of movies. My main reason for this is because when I think of a 2-D film, I consider the movie to be, at least, an artform, which is just what a good movie should be, right? When I think of a movie being in 3-D though, I consider it to be just a movie interested in throwing things at you for no apparent reason and much less of an artform because 3-D is the way we see things in real life.

I think the best way to make a movie realistic is through artistic means and not by imitation of reality, 3-D, I think, seems closer to the latter.

That's just my opinion on the subject, so what's yours?

Jim Hyslop · December 9, 2008

Mixed. I really don't see the point - mostly, I guess, because I have yet to see a 3-D movie that didn't use the third dimension gratuitously, as you mention.

On the other hand, your argument about art form vs. imitation of reality kind of reminds me of the old colour vs. black and white arguments of yesteryear. And look where b&w is now :-)

I have a feeling the 3D craze will get a lot worse (in terms of gratuitousness) before much if any kind of art emerges from it. But I also have a sneaky feeling it's not going to go away, either. I think the next logical step would be to have virtual reality 3D, where you are part of the action.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Jim Hyslop

Adam Brixey · December 9, 2008

I remember that Hitchcock used 3-D on "Dial M for Murder" He was forced to and not happy about it, but nevertheless, I have heard he did not go for "gimmick" shots and actually used the third dimension in ways that were motivated by the plot (he was the master of using new technology to its fullest, after all). I haven't actually seen the film in this fashion, so I can only speak about what I've heard

3-D is just another tool, and tools can be used for art or exploitation (or the merging of the two :rolleyes:)

Problem with 3-D is that it was created and employed for the purpose of cheap thrills, and has yet to move out of that realm. It has potential put in the right hands, I feel. We just need some innovative mind to break through with a unique vision that bumps 3-D into the realm of art.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Adam Brixey

Dominic Case · December 9, 2008

Every addition to the arsenal of filmmaking technology tends to start off with a "we use it because we can, and gee whiz, look what it does" approach.

S3D (stereo 3D) is a prime example, with (literally) in-your face shots thrown in quite gratuitously, to justify the use of the technology.

IF we get past that, and IF the technology becomes ever-easier to use, then we just MIGHT see a time when S3D films are the norm: a film will be made in 3D because all films are, and audiences will feel that a flat image sells them short; not because of the opportunity for gimmicks.

Think of stereo sound - not just in cinema (who would release a theatrical feature in mono sound these days?), but in music. In the early days of stereo LPs, bands would throw in phasing, and wide separation, and stuff to emphasise the width of the aural image. Similarly, in cinema, it took a little while for mixers to figure out that is was a good idea to keep (generally) dialogue in the centre track even when the character is off-screen, and so on. Big effects pictures now have a room full of sound, but small character-driven films use stereo sound even though they don't over-exploit it.

But if the studios use S3D just as the latest gimmick to increase box-office (tempting, as it is still a significant point of difference between theatrical and home viewing), rather than making better movies (or making them a bit more economically), then it's hard to be optimistic about S3D.