The film Avatar, now on DVD, has sparked a lot of conversation about its animation. The film implemented 3D into the film, forcing audiences everywhere to pay at least twelve dollars to wear sunglasses in order to experience the true nature of the film. But as other films attempt to follow the success of Avatar by implementing 3D into their own films, we need to ask the question: is it really worth it?
In the case of Avatar, yes it is. However, there is a very large difference between what James Cameron has created withAvatar, and what other directors are attempting to achieve with their own “3D” films. What we have is a clash between 3D as art, and 3D as a marketing gimmick.
It’s no wonder Avatar has become the highest grossing movie of all time, considering that it spent its entire run in 3D, and many weeks in IMAX theaters, all of which cost extra money to view. But in the film’s case, the 3D animation was not just for the money. Avatar was actually filmed in 3D, using high tech equipment and special technology that effectively leaps over theUncanny Valley (which states the more realistic something appears, the less realistic it will feel), and creates a CGI world that is practically reality. However, with the success of James Cameron’s ideas and ventures, other films have taken to 3D as well.
Unfortunately, these studios have different ideas. Since Avatar was filmed in 3D and was meant to revolutionize the film industry, it legitimately becomes a form of art, creating a realistic world in which we can become a part, as well as contributing to the industry as the technological world around us grows. Because of its monstrous success (due to high prices at theaters), other studios have decided to transpose their films into 3D as well. The difference here is that these new movies, including Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland, all added 3D in post-production. So what exactly does this do to the film? For example: the 3D conversion process for Clash of the Titans was ten weeks. However, the studio only pushed the release date of the film by one week. When released, the 3D versions of the film were said to be choppy and ill-made, and that the 2D version was the superior version.
So then, what’s so great about 3D? It depends on who’s making it. 3D can be a legitimate form of art, seen in Avatar. Unfortunately, many studios see it as a marketing tool get more money. The new film Shrek Ever Afterwas “filmed” in 3D, but the previous threeShrek films did fine without the conversion. The reason for the conversion? More money for the studio. The creative integrity disappears once the studio starts focusing solely on how they can grab as much money as possible.
Many years ago, films were a vibrant art form. In recent years, it has turned into pure entertainment, and unfortunately those films that are meant as a form of art tend to be largely ignored. While the occasional indie film might make it into the spotlight, or a big-grossing movie such as The Dark Knight or District 9 may show its wings as a “thinking man’s movie,” the majority of films in theaters are those that require less thinking, and more explosions. When it comes to 3D,Avatar shows that the conversion itself can act in a way that propels the art of filmmaking, and can draw people to the theater for the same reason they go to an art museum. However, the majority of studios are misusing 3D and giving it a bad name. 3D is not a bad thing for the film industry. Instead of using it just to draw money, the studios should be looking back to when they stood as an institution of art, and rediscover just what it means to make a film.
...this is one of the moments where I actually reserve what I think about the film. Weird. Although, to be fair, the film is totally cliched. Just with amazing CGI.
Rating: 7.5/10
Extra: If I'm going to pay $3 extra to pay for cheap 3D glasses, I'm f*****g keeping them.
No comments:
Post a Comment