Although many do think that the renewals of movies in a third dimensional view has made movie more realistic and interesting, many also believe that 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.
Digital 3-D, which has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years, is finally ready for its close-up. Just about every top director and major studio is doing it. These are not just animations but live-action films, comedies, dramas and documentaries. Disney and its Pixar studios have released five 3-D movies in the past year, including a 3-D-ified version of Toy Story. George Lucas hopes to rerelease his Star Wars movies in 3-D. And Steven Spielberg is currently shooting Tintin in it, with Peter Jackson doing the 3-D sequel next year. Live sports and rock concerts in 3-D have been showing up at digital theaters around the U.S. nearly every week.
Like I stated before many do believe it will make a great impact in the way viewers will react to such movies and the realness of them. For example, the new movie Tron, which was released December 17, was said to have astounded many viewers because of the great effects it carried out. Another good example would be, director James Cameron's Avatar, released December of 2009. Spielberg stated that it would be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever. More than a thousand people worked on it, at a cost in excess of $300 million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge for some, it is an annoying distraction. Had digital 3-D been available a dozen or so years ago when Titanic was shot, he'd have used it, stated director James Cameron.
Although directors do feel making films three dimensional will make a better viewing if films others believe it just creates nausea and headaches. Some complaints regarding these films have been that it is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Also that its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D, it is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness, it limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose and that for moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.
Roger Ebert stated in his article that Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it's worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. He feels Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do "fake 3-D" better than others have. Nevertheless Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why would anyone want to add a distraction? Some may say that it is merely to get money out of it. Although many movies do seem to come out worse once transferred to 3-D, one can never hold back the need to watch and see if it really did suck. So it is easy to say that Cameron doesn’t really just want to make the viewing better for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment