Blogocentric Formulations

Tron: Legacy and the whole 3D movie thing.

Today, I finally got a chance to see TRON: LEGACY at the movie theaters. I was specifically waiting so that I could see it in IMAX 3D, and today happened to be the day I was able to do that. This was one of my "event" movies, like AVATAR, where I felt I owed it to myself to see it in the best possible environment. And I wasn't disappointed... by the visual effects. Without getting into an opinion of the story and character elements (suffice to say TRON: LEGACY was far superior to AVATAR in all of those respects), neither of these movies disappointed on a technical level. Both had amazing visual effects, and seeing them on a monstrous screen in eye-popping 3D was a real treat.

But what the whole experience really got me thinking about is the whole 3D phenomenon, and whether it's really necessary.

What got me thinking about it was the fact that I had to drive thirty miles out of my way to see it at an IMAX theater in Orange County, because the IMAX theater that's ten minutes from my apartment dropped TRON: LEGACY the minute GREEN HORNET was released. And maybe part of it is bitterness that I had to drive so far to see the movie I really wanted to see... but there's also a large part of me that wonders why the hell GREEN HORNET needs to be seen in IMAX 3D at all.

TRON: LEGACY and AVATAR were both about fantastic worlds created largely through the use of CGI... it seems natural to me that showing the film in 3D is a great way to fully immerse the audience in the world you've created, and give them a sense of being in another world for two hours. That, I get. What I don't get are the films (especially the ones shot in "flat" 2D and then converted to 3D in the post-production process) that use 3D as a gimmick. Do we really need to see beads of sweat flying at us in 3D because they thought the third STEP UP movie needed something to keep it interesting?

Nowhere was the discrepancy between "useful" and "useless" 3D more apparent than in the trailers. I saw a 3D trailer for BORN TO BE WILD, a nature documentary that follows orphaned orangutans and elephants, and the people who rescue them and raise them. As I sat there in the theater, I was amazed that the grasses of the African plains stretched out in front of my eyes, and the baby elephant that ran by was near enough to touch. I felt like I was in Africa, walking amidst these animals and the world around them as I watched. It was truly inspiring. Compare that to the 3D trailer for MARS NEEDS MOMS, an animated feature where the 3D was essentially comprised of things jumping out of the screen toward the audience, clearly going for the "wow" factor more than having any legitimate reason for it to be in the movie.

As an aspiring filmmaker, I'm excited about the possibilities of 3D and other technologies that can make the experience of watching more engaging and more exciting. But I see the potential (and the beginnings) for abuse of this new technology... the idea that making something 3D is something to be done just because it's possible rather than because it actually elevates the viewing experience or enhances the movie in some tangible way.

I can only hope that, after the initial 3D fad is over, it becomes a tool that helps filmmakers tell better stories when appropriate, rather than another device that's ruined by its overexposure. I'm excited about BORN TO BE WILD (as mentioned above), and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, because they were shot in 3D, intended to be enjoyed in 3D (although 2D versions will also be available). Not so much looking forward to HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT. 2 and GREEN LANTERN, both of which were shot in 2D, but are undergoing a 3D makeover in post-production. To me, if those movies were meant to be seen in 3D (and I could definitely see the argument for it with HARRY POTTER), they should have been shot in 3D. Converting them after-the-fact seems kind of... opportunistic.

But maybe that's just me.