Recently Roger Ebert wrote an article outlining the problems with 3D in film. He addresses many issues, from the fact that it causes headaches and eyestrain, to the fact that it darkens the screen, making it harder to see what is happening. While these complaints are all accurate, they aren't huge issues and will likely not prevent anyone from seeing 3D.
What will affect this, though, are his other arguments, which all basically bring up the same point: 3D is unnecessary. It doesn't add much to the experience since the human mind puts the images into three dimensions automatically. This renders 3D, no matter how well done, as unnecessary. Since the illusion of three dimensions is already present, all 3D becomes is a cheap novelty meant to make money.
That is the major issue with 3D, it only exists as a way to make more money. Because the technology to show 3D films costs more, they charge more for tickets. many movies like "Clash of the Titans," even though they aren't filmed in 3D cheaply convert to 3D in order to make more money. This causes a sup-par 3D that affects the image of the film and furthers the issues of darkness and headaches.
While 3D is a nice novelty for a few films, for most movies it really doesn't add anything. Only a few genres of film will really be improved by the technology, the rest would just seem weird.
5 films that would not benefit from 3D
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Citizen Kane
The Notebook
On the Waterfront
High Noon
No comments:
Post a Comment