In Your Face

I’m not sure just what to think about directors converting their old pictures to 3D. I understand the business case, and we’re not subverting the intentions of the original creators... but I don’t know that they can pull it off.

In theory, it sounds exciting. Who wouldn’t want to have the theatrical experience enhanced, to feel even more like you’re in on the action? My problem is that — even with the latest 3D techniques — it doesn’t quite work. Oh, I can get past the glasses, but the all-too-frequent image ghosting and double-vision take me out of the experience.

Now, I haven’t seen any of the proposed digital solutions — I’m pretty much going with what I’ve seen at DisneyWorld and the local IMAX theater. But I’ll remain skeptical until I see evidence that there’s a real improvement in store.

Still, I can’t help hoping they can do it.


At 11:24 AM, Ole Blue The Heretic said...

Do you believe that many would want to watch? It seems most 3d pics flop, but perhaps if done better, no headaches afterwards etc., they will find a big enough audience.

At 10:14 AM, Bill Coughlan said...

I think they've got a lot of obstacles to overcome.

I understand the argument -- they've got to come up with something to differentiate the moviegoing experience from the increasingly high-end home theater experience, at least for the average viewer.

And as for the "flop" factor, most 3D movies to date have been dependent on the 3D effect to the exclusion of all else -- story, production value, artistic worth, you name it. If 3D were just another tool in the (good) filmmaker's arsenal, then perhaps they'd use it with the same restraint with which they use any other tool.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home