Should more movies shoot in 3-D?

Reuel Gomez · July 2, 2013

Considering how many films get the conversion treatment, should more films strive to shoot in 3D? Especially if shooting digitally with spherical lenses already?

David Mullen ASC · July 2, 2013

I think the people pushing 3D as the future of all movies seriously forgot to take into account that if almost everything is in 3D, then: (1) it stops being special; and (2) there will be a certain amount of mediocre 3D out there just based on law of averages. Both aspects lower the value of 3D in the mind of viewers, and since it tends to be more expensive to produce, it gets harder for producers to justify 3D if people start feeling like it is nothing special, i.e. not worth making an effort to see.

So my feeling is that most 3D should be shot native, not post-converted, but it should be for projects where the filmmaker feels it will add something to the experience -- keep it more of a special event sort of situation, like "Avatar" was. Which is probably what will have happened by the time "Avatar 2" comes out anyway, 3D would have fallen down in popularity just in time for Cameron to excite people with it all over again.

I certainly have a limit to how many 3D movies I want to see in a year. Last 3D movie I saw was "The Great Gatsby" and that was because it was shot in native 3D. For that reason, I'll also see the second "Hobbit" movie in 3D -- if the filmmaker took the time and effort to shoot in 3D, I'll show him the respect of seeing it the way he intended it to be seen. Otherwise, I'm not that interested -- I saw "Star Trek Into Darkness" twice, both times in 2D.

Reuel Gomez · July 7, 2013

I think the people pushing 3D as the future of all movies seriously forgot to take into account that if almost everything is in 3D, then: (1) it stops being special; and (2) there will be a certain amount of mediocre 3D out there just based on law of averages. Both aspects lower the value of 3D in the mind of viewers, and since it tends to be more expensive to produce, it gets harder for producers to justify 3D if people start feeling like it is nothing special, i.e. not worth making an effort to see.

So my feeling is that most 3D should be shot native, not post-converted, but it should be for projects where the filmmaker feels it will add something to the experience -- keep it more of a special event sort of situation, like "Avatar" was. Which is probably what will have happened by the time "Avatar 2" comes out anyway, 3D would have fallen down in popularity just in time for Cameron to excite people with it all over again.

I certainly have a limit to how many 3D movies I want to see in a year. Last 3D movie I saw was "The Great Gatsby" and that was because it was shot in native 3D. For that reason, I'll also see the second "Hobbit" movie in 3D -- if the filmmaker took the time and effort to shoot in 3D, I'll show him the respect of seeing it the way he intended it to be seen. Otherwise, I'm not that interested -- I saw "Star Trek Into Darkness" twice, both times in 2D.

Agreed