Saturday, July 14, 2012

Something different.

  I know I don't usually bore you with no pictures (but hey there are only like 3 people who read this blog so I can do what I want) I love posting with pictures, that's how I speak. If I could write papers for school with gifs and such I would win at life but that's not how things work. Anyway, I wrote this thing and I'm quite proud of it. Just a warning, if you actually like 3D movies, walk away now, I don't -well, never mind I do do that in this... any who, just read and give your thoughts on my article:

Fixing 3D In Film

Elizabeth O'Brien

  There is a problem in movies today that I have noticed; most films have been changed to or have been filmed in 3D. It’s acceptable for some movies but it is now in almost everything, making it more expensive not only to make the films, but also to see them. When filming a movie it usually is not filmed in 3D unless they know ahead of time that that is their main goal, because of this they have to go back after finishing the movie and make everything 3D which can be very pricey. Those few movies actually filmed in 3D are costly to produce because you need a special camera to get the effect right. The problems with 3D movies don’t just stop with the expenses; 3D also makes many people sick. “Not everyone thinks they're getting their money's worth and a minority complain of dizziness and headaches.” (Child, Ben), I also know of people with sight problems, where they already have to wear glasses so it makes the movie experience even less enjoyable if they have to wear another set of glasses. People also tend to remember less of the movie and find it hard to dive into the plot when Imax sharpens out so many trivial details; it makes it harder to focus on the meat of the film like the characters and the story. Film and 3D have always been used together but never in serious movies adult, 3D was mostly used in childish productions as a little trick to amaze people. Though it has evolved I don’t believe it is ready to be used this much in films.

  Movie makers are still focusing on the trickery and the fun they can have with 3D rather than the story lines; I suggest we go back to well acted, directed, and written movies and let 3D and Imax refine itself for a while. “Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it (3D) is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the movie going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets.” (Ebert, Roger). The success of a film should not be dependent on it being in Imax but rather the quality of the actors, writers and director. There are many great aspects of movies that are being over looked because of the over use of 3D lowering the overall quality of the film. I believe filmmakers shouldn’t settle but should do their best without 3D and shouldn’t be leaning on their effects as much as they should be their writers.

  I’m proposing that we cut back on the use of Imax, not drop it all together. There are a couple of movies that 3D actually works very well in, though a movie should never be promoted solely on the fact that it is in 3D, there are also many that it just does not help the film at all and detracts from the seriousness of the movie. 3D still haves some problems to work out and movie caliber should not suffer because of that. I say films that are not for children should return to 2D and refine their work before jumping to the next dimension.

  Filmmakers need to make sure that 3D is the best way for them to get their story across to their audience before spending all the money filming their movie in 3D. They should be open to the possibility that it will not be the best means of telling their tale. This will not only save them money but will make a better final project.


Child, B.
(2011, August 11).
3d no better than 2d and gives filmgoers headaches, claims study.
Retrieved from

Ebert, R.
(2010, May 10).
Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too).
Newsweek, 155(19), 46-49.

No comments:

Post a Comment