I'm getting tired of hearing some of the same anti-3d arguments over and over again. Granted, one way that I could avoid that would be to stop seeking them out, but I've got a need for debate built into my soul, so I don't think that's going to happen. Consequently, I'm going to be addressing some of the arguments I hear against 3d most frequently that I don't think carry any weight.
One of the big ones that I keep hearing is the idea that somehow shooting a film in 3d draws the filmmaker's attention away from the story of the film. I believe that the logic go something like this: 3d is highly marketable, and therefore many filmmakers treated like a gimmick just to get people to see their film. Therefore, if they did not have access to the 3d gimmick, they would be forced to instead focus on the quality of their story. This makes two faulty assumptions. First is that the idea of that people who would be competent enough to create a good story are the same group of people who would substitute story for a gimmick in the first place. That is decidedly not the case. Second, you're making the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.
Let's take an example of another purely visual aspect of film: color. Color is absolutely unnecessary in order to create a film with a substantial story. In fact, what is considered to be the best film of all time, Citizen Kane, does not employ the use of color at all. Yet it would be fool hardy to suggest that we should abandon the use of color at all, especially when cast against such masterful use as we see in The Wizard of Oz, where color was used to create the sense of magic evoked by being in Oz. That's the danger that we run into if we completely abandon 3d. There is potential for this medium to allow new forms of storytelling the way that color allowed the Wizard of Oz to create this new sense of wonder the could not have been accomplished without the use of color. Granted, we haven't seen very many examples of this kind of use yet (although, I do suggest picking up a copy of Batman: Arkham City to play in 3d if you want to see examples of how 3d can be used effectively, where the game put any object that controls the flow of fate, especially when it has to do with the life of a character, in front of the screen with the player can touch it, calling attention to the players inability to halt the march of death). The point is that 3d opens up new opportunities for storytelling that do not exist without it, so the potential to create a good story is greater when 3d is considered.
One of the big ones that I keep hearing is the idea that somehow shooting a film in 3d draws the filmmaker's attention away from the story of the film. I believe that the logic go something like this: 3d is highly marketable, and therefore many filmmakers treated like a gimmick just to get people to see their film. Therefore, if they did not have access to the 3d gimmick, they would be forced to instead focus on the quality of their story. This makes two faulty assumptions. First is that the idea of that people who would be competent enough to create a good story are the same group of people who would substitute story for a gimmick in the first place. That is decidedly not the case. Second, you're making the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.
Let's take an example of another purely visual aspect of film: color. Color is absolutely unnecessary in order to create a film with a substantial story. In fact, what is considered to be the best film of all time, Citizen Kane, does not employ the use of color at all. Yet it would be fool hardy to suggest that we should abandon the use of color at all, especially when cast against such masterful use as we see in The Wizard of Oz, where color was used to create the sense of magic evoked by being in Oz. That's the danger that we run into if we completely abandon 3d. There is potential for this medium to allow new forms of storytelling the way that color allowed the Wizard of Oz to create this new sense of wonder the could not have been accomplished without the use of color. Granted, we haven't seen very many examples of this kind of use yet (although, I do suggest picking up a copy of Batman: Arkham City to play in 3d if you want to see examples of how 3d can be used effectively, where the game put any object that controls the flow of fate, especially when it has to do with the life of a character, in front of the screen with the player can touch it, calling attention to the players inability to halt the march of death). The point is that 3d opens up new opportunities for storytelling that do not exist without it, so the potential to create a good story is greater when 3d is considered.
That highlights the second primary complaint that I hear. People claim that the only difference between 3D and 2D film is the inclusion of objects that pop out of the screen at you. But that's a gross oversimplification of the 3D process and the advantages it allows. Let's look at the following picture for a moment, taken from a red/cyan anaglyph version of The Amazing Spiderman in 3D:
I'm actually going to specifically ask you not to look at this with 3D glasses on. There's a raindrop on the top right corner that's represented as a non-combined red and cyan streak. Basically, it's separating the image entirely, making it easy to tell that, when both eyes are combined, you're going to see through that raindrop, picking out the entirety of what's behind it. 3D gives you something of an X-ray vision. You can see the raindrop in 3D, but you can also literally see through the raindrop to objects behind it. Carnivores use this in nature hide themselves among leaves without it impairing their vision. Artists can use that to create occlusions that add to the ambiance of the film, with the opportunity to use them more heavily because they're not obscuring the image as much as they would be in 2D.
But even if that wasn't an advantage, by claiming pop-outs are the only advantage, you're overlooking the other obvious advantage: that images go into the screen as well. That has a lot of positive impacts that people overlook. It decreases the slowdown effect that happens when people walk toward or away from the camera, for example. It provides more negative space to work with when composing a shot. It causes subjects to stand out against their background, making them more easily visible. It's a new format with a much wider potential than people are willing to admit.
Another common complaint that I see is the insinuation that 3d glasses, by the mere nature of being glasses, call too much attention to the fact that you're watching a film and disallow immersion. That's incredibly subjective. In my case, I find the flatness of an image to be far more distracting than what I happen to be wearing in the theater. I'm not making that up. Because I watch more 3d movies mare than I watch 2d lately, it's gotten to the point where 2d images stick out like a sore thumb to me (I'm looking at you, the end of The Avengers). But of course that argument would also be subjective. That's kind of the point though. Both sides of this argument are entirely subjective, and substantively is equivalent to saying, "TVs are better than projectors, because you don't see a ray of light because your attention to the fact that a film is being projected." Everyone is capable of tuning out minor details like that, so pointing them out only exacerbates the problem.
Anyway, I know that most of the people complaining about this will never see my blog. But these arguments don't work. They're misinformed and logically contradictory. I'm willing to accept there are good reasons not to watch 3D, but those arguments are not them.
No comments:
Post a Comment