I have a new metaphor to describe the studio-driven push for 3D stereo films.I've said, and many agree, that 3D is not part of the natural evolution of cinema, like sound and color were. 3D is a paintbrush in an artist's toolbox to help tell a story - and not all filmmakers require this tool to tell their stories.
3D stereo is like Cinemascope in the '50s. Widescreen film was introduced as a cinema-only alternative to television. The beautiful wide canvas was born as a new tool for storytellers, but not every film requires it. And some films are simply wrong for it.
Today, six decades after widescreen was introduced, some filmmakers are still using it. But it's not appropriate for all films.
So, what's the difference between 3D and widescreen? Studios can charge more for 3D, while widescreen movie ticket prices were never surcharged a premium. That's why it's being shoved down our throats by studio executives and producers.
3 comments:
So Todd, does that mean that you don't like 3D? Or are you just not a fan of the needless conversions and the fact that it gets used more for marketing than anything else?
the future is sensurround!
you make a very valid argument, however there is an angle you are not considering: 3D is only the beginning of an evolution in visual story telling / visual media, the end goal being 360 holographic projection. yes, just like r2d2's Princess Leia message in episode 4.
Post a Comment