Avatar hit's 3D legacy
There's a new terror stalking the gold encrusted streets of Hollywood and it's name is 3D. Spurred on by the success of a little film called Avatar, which has earned over $1.3 billion and garnered rave reviews, movie executives are now scouring their production slate to see where the next 3D success could be lurking.
Get ready for Tron Legacy, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, The Princess and the Frog, Battle for Terra and even a sequel to 80s B-movie horror Piranha in the shape of the imaginatively titled Piranha 3D, with more to come.
If reports are to be believed, Ridley Scott is trying to turn his soon-to-be-made $200 million Robin Hood epic into a 3D version and Zombieland 2 is also going to be tinkered with so that the blood and guts of the undead can appear to splatter over your popcorn next time around.
It also seems that we could soon be bombarded with a raft of re-releases from the archives if the money men get their way. George Lucas wants to show us the Millenium Falcon eluding the Imperial Starfleet once again in 3D and there have been rumours that other classics such as The Wizard of Oz, Superman and Jurassic Park could be 3D-ified.
While the huge success of Avatar is a godsend for the cinemas is it as good for audiences?
My own experience of Avatar is that it looks nice enough but that the plot is so simplistic it's virtually My First Sci-fi, though maybe that's vital if James Cameron is going to get the largest possible audience through the door to see it.
What really bothers me is that all the effort that has gone into making the film look so good is dulled by the viewer having to wear sunglasses for the duration. The gorgeous colours are muted and I find myself lifting my specs at regular intervals to see what's really going on up there.
Just this week I watched recent 3D film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on Blu-ray, in a standard 2D version. The script was funny, the picture clear, the plot great fun. And I didn't miss 3D at all.
Then again, if a high grossing 3D movie brings more viewers into the cinema and means smaller films can be made with the profits, maybe it's not all bad.
I'm waiting to be convinced.
Get ready for Tron Legacy, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, The Princess and the Frog, Battle for Terra and even a sequel to 80s B-movie horror Piranha in the shape of the imaginatively titled Piranha 3D, with more to come.
If reports are to be believed, Ridley Scott is trying to turn his soon-to-be-made $200 million Robin Hood epic into a 3D version and Zombieland 2 is also going to be tinkered with so that the blood and guts of the undead can appear to splatter over your popcorn next time around.
It also seems that we could soon be bombarded with a raft of re-releases from the archives if the money men get their way. George Lucas wants to show us the Millenium Falcon eluding the Imperial Starfleet once again in 3D and there have been rumours that other classics such as The Wizard of Oz, Superman and Jurassic Park could be 3D-ified.
While the huge success of Avatar is a godsend for the cinemas is it as good for audiences?
My own experience of Avatar is that it looks nice enough but that the plot is so simplistic it's virtually My First Sci-fi, though maybe that's vital if James Cameron is going to get the largest possible audience through the door to see it.
What really bothers me is that all the effort that has gone into making the film look so good is dulled by the viewer having to wear sunglasses for the duration. The gorgeous colours are muted and I find myself lifting my specs at regular intervals to see what's really going on up there.
Just this week I watched recent 3D film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on Blu-ray, in a standard 2D version. The script was funny, the picture clear, the plot great fun. And I didn't miss 3D at all.
Then again, if a high grossing 3D movie brings more viewers into the cinema and means smaller films can be made with the profits, maybe it's not all bad.
I'm waiting to be convinced.
2 Comments:
Agree re: Avatar. Basically a 3D movie with a 2D script. However, the use of 3D in Avatar for depth rather than novelty 'coming at ya' purposes is hopefully a sign of a maturing approach to 3D in movie-land.
I've yet to see Avatar - biggest box office film in the world or not. That's because I went to see the 15 minute preview back in the early autumn and was left pretty non-plussed by the whole thing.
As for 3D - it's still not good enough. The colours are washed out and dull. As you say, if you lift your glasses during the film you realise that lots of light and colour is being drained out of the film by the glasses. They might be better than the old red/blue specs (not for nothing during C4's recent limp 3D season did they tell you turn off the lights to watch) but they still cut out plenty of light.
In Avatar, Cameron's gone to a great deal of trouble to create his vivid and colourful world, and yet I felt like I was watching it through some murky prism. In fact I double and triple checked that my glasses were clean.
The same was true for Coraline - the only other film I've seen recently in 3D - although that did at least have a slightly dark and forboding look about it, and so wasn't harmed by becoming slightly darker still.
As for reissuing films in 3D that weren't made in 3D - well that's a pointless marketing exercise. A 21st century version of the fad of colourising old black and white films. Yes with Toy Story, they have the original model elements in a bank of computers so they can effectively re-render it. But it wasn't framed originally to make use of 3D.
I wish I had the trust that the money rolling in for films like Avatar mean that smaller films can be made, but I think instead we're about to get a glut of 3D CGI SF films who'd be happy with a tenth of what Cameron's managed to get.
I do want to see Cloud With A Chance of Meatballs though - in 2D.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home