Are you sure you want to delete this?
I've seen so many of these 'Real 3D' films when the technology was new when 'Avatar' was released, and I felt the technology worked against the storytelling, because it feels too gimmicky and I was always aware of things that became distracting within the setting. I haven't seen a single filmmaker make any real use of the technology. I mean how do you begin to tell a story in three dimensional space when the way a film camera captures it is not true to how the human eye would see it. For instance, in a close-up the background will become blurry because of shallow depth of field, and that doesn't look very good in 3-D. So, I think the way William Wyler shot his films in deep focus with Gregg Toland would be a much better alternative. I know there have been a lot of experimental VR films which will inevitably replace 3-D and those horrendous glasses, but I think doing that would require a vastly different approach to filmmaking. I think there would have to be far less cutting, the cinema screen would become obsolete, as cinema-goers would have to put on VR devices, and the user would be able to rotate and see 360 around the room. Therefore, the way screenplays are written would need to become more interactive.
If films become three-dimensional in its truer sense, then films would become something like video games where the viewer is able to interact, maybe he can play an alternative character and interact with movie stars, and decide the 'fate' of the movie by making decisions that affect the course of the film.
The way 3-D films are made now are imprisoned to what the director wants, which is why I think people haven't responded to it very well, because its true potential hasn't been unlocked. Of course, when this revolution takes place, I will absolutely sever my film-going completely.Back to Film Talk...