There was a funny scene on Modern Family the other night (one amongst many on such a good show) where Phil goes to a movie with Claire and end up seeing two different films. Phil sees the 3D horror hack-fest ‘Croctopus’ there’s a great part where he reacts to something and says, “Oh man, I feel like I have ink on me.” He’s blown away by the 3D, however, the episode is about them not being as smart as another kid’s “doctor” parents who go to erudite French films. So the 3D film is for the dumb American while the one with subtitles is too baring for the average person (aka dumb person).
Modern Family is hilarious and 3D films are just plain stupid. It’s a gimmick and it always has been however now, we’ve let James Cameron and a bunch of blue jungle people trick us into thinking this is some great innovation in film. Now you can see almost anything in 3D and the experience is, well, kind of annoying because I have to wear glasses. I already have to wear glasses and now I have to wear more glasses.
Now of course, that’s not the real reason why 3D is a waste of the extra $3 or whatever it is. Roger Ebert just posted a great conversation with film editor Walter Murch that explains it in more cinematic terms. Here’s a clip
Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of “Green Hornet” and though I haven’t seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses “gather in” the image — even on a huge Imax screen — and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980’s — “Captain Eo” — and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the “convergence/focus” issue. A couple of the other issues — darkness and “smallness” — are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
You can read the whole thing here
It’s a bit techie but he makes a good point from the perspective of a guy that knows film and more importantly, knows the audience and how we watch films.
So save your money and watch it in 2D and remember, if the screenplay is no good, so shall the movie be.
Writers rule the world.
