I am a beginner when it comes to 3D, but I am interested and I like to teach myself about things. 3D is next on my list of things to explore.
I watched some of Avatar. Yawn, yawn, yawn, I hear you say, but, I only got to watch half of it because the projector broke down, the vivid colours made the animation look like Disney on acid, the trite metaphor for our planet abuse was dull and unsophisticated and blah blah blah. Despite it's faults - which would have killed any other film stone dead - it was the cinematic event of the decade and brought with it a kind of wonderment that I have not experienced since I first watched Bond movies as a kid, or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Superman. It was thrilling.
There are plenty of naysayers decrying the technological advances in 3D. Their misplaced snobbery aimed squarely at gimmickery and the studios ability to extract more money from the audience for a substandard experience. Now this may well be true of films not originated in 3D, but I have not seen any of those (e.g. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans). But even Ice Age 3D - again, not my typical cinematic fare but I have a 5 year old - was amazing to my inexperienced eyes. It staggers me that I haven't heard even one of the detractors acknowledge the notion that this must be an exceptionally exciting development for filmmakers. That there could be another tool, or toy, in the box for the inventive, imaginative minds of the people responsible for making our entertainment to get their hands on.
The denigrators definitely have a point on some issues, but the lack of any consideration on their part for the interest of the people making films to me seems quite odd. It seems to go unnoticed that, in it's most recent incarnation, this technology is still in it's comparative infancy and requires a good deal more filmmakers to experiment and explore the potential of this likely invigoration of the old medium.
I am very keen to see a film with the elements of cinema that I traditionally enjoy but shot in 3D. I'd love to see what effect it can have on more atmospheric scenes and how it can be manipulated to make the stories more powerful, more affecting, more compelling. These are not qualities that I associate with watching Avatar which felt far more like the story was built for the medium rather than the other way round.
Probably the best way to do this is to just get on with it and do it myself; so that's what I'm going to do. I am going to shoot my next short film in 3D. Is it a gimmick? Well I guess in some way it is. Does it have the potential to enhance our stories? I'd like to at least try it out and see if it can be used for something other than action sequences.
Check out this badboy from Ikonskop. I've read some of the stuff they've published and it seems like a very interesting camera, if for no other reason than it's size.
I watched some of Avatar. Yawn, yawn, yawn, I hear you say, but, I only got to watch half of it because the projector broke down, the vivid colours made the animation look like Disney on acid, the trite metaphor for our planet abuse was dull and unsophisticated and blah blah blah. Despite it's faults - which would have killed any other film stone dead - it was the cinematic event of the decade and brought with it a kind of wonderment that I have not experienced since I first watched Bond movies as a kid, or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Superman. It was thrilling.
There are plenty of naysayers decrying the technological advances in 3D. Their misplaced snobbery aimed squarely at gimmickery and the studios ability to extract more money from the audience for a substandard experience. Now this may well be true of films not originated in 3D, but I have not seen any of those (e.g. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans). But even Ice Age 3D - again, not my typical cinematic fare but I have a 5 year old - was amazing to my inexperienced eyes. It staggers me that I haven't heard even one of the detractors acknowledge the notion that this must be an exceptionally exciting development for filmmakers. That there could be another tool, or toy, in the box for the inventive, imaginative minds of the people responsible for making our entertainment to get their hands on.
The denigrators definitely have a point on some issues, but the lack of any consideration on their part for the interest of the people making films to me seems quite odd. It seems to go unnoticed that, in it's most recent incarnation, this technology is still in it's comparative infancy and requires a good deal more filmmakers to experiment and explore the potential of this likely invigoration of the old medium.
I am very keen to see a film with the elements of cinema that I traditionally enjoy but shot in 3D. I'd love to see what effect it can have on more atmospheric scenes and how it can be manipulated to make the stories more powerful, more affecting, more compelling. These are not qualities that I associate with watching Avatar which felt far more like the story was built for the medium rather than the other way round.
Probably the best way to do this is to just get on with it and do it myself; so that's what I'm going to do. I am going to shoot my next short film in 3D. Is it a gimmick? Well I guess in some way it is. Does it have the potential to enhance our stories? I'd like to at least try it out and see if it can be used for something other than action sequences.
Check out this badboy from Ikonskop. I've read some of the stuff they've published and it seems like a very interesting camera, if for no other reason than it's size.