3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
In this letter, Hollywood film editor Walter Murch explains why 3D in films can only ever be a gimmick.
....So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point. ....This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
I've seen two films in the past year which employ the latest 3D technology, and was unimpressed. But I assumed the technology just hadn't been mastered yet, because such acclaimed directors as Steven Spielberg and James Cameron had said they would film exclusively in 3D in the future. I trusted the professionals.
Apparently, the professionals are fools. Like all human beings, they are willful and sometimes let desires cloud their judgement.
Politicians aren't the only ones commonly proposing actions which fly in the face of reality. What are some examples from other industries?
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
It matters not one wit to me. Being born cross-eyed my brain stopped overlaying the mismatching images from my eyes to prevent double vision. The old blue/red glasses just gave me either a blue view of the world or a red one depending on which eye I was using. No 3D for me. Of course, that also means no depth perception either, which makes my occupation as a crane operator a little suspect...
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 9:34pmApr '11
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I don't know if it is still true of current technology, but one drawback of the original 3-D was it also required a special screen; showing it on a standard screen reduced its effectiveness, and most theaters were unwilling to buy the special 3-D screen.
Aug '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Hollywood is so clueless they thought that premiering the technology in the movie "Avatar" would be a good idea. What a horrid movie. I turned to my wife about an hour into the film, she had her glasses off. I asked why and she replied " what's the difference ?". It sucked with or without them.
They are dropping the price of the popcorn I see.
When the stuff smells, sprinkle sugar on it I guess.
May '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I don't understand the carping. As long as they offer a 2D version for those whose eyes can't handle 3D, I want more and more 3D movies . . . because I absolutely love, love, love the crazy things.
I saw Tin Tin last week in 3D and was thrilled.
Call me a shallow thrill-seeker. Be the first to do so. I don't care.
Jun '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I always feel like I need anti-nausea medicine about half-way through a 3-D flick.
Jul '11
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Big pharma is always producing another "me too" drug when 10 others exist. Yet this new drug which may command at best a 2% market share is priced as high as the other ones. I have never understood why they don't undercut to gain market share and thereby lower costs for clients and also gain profit.
Aug '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I'll reserve judgement until I see Hugo in 3D. Supposedly, it's breathtaking.
May '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Avatar is just Fern Gully in space.
Aug '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Aaron Miller
Avatar is just Fern Gully in space. · Jan 11 at 10:40am
No, it's Dances With Wolves with cat-people.
Dec '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Fail about sums it up.
Dec '11
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I'm eagerly awaiting the re-release of Russ Meyer's Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens in 3-D.
May '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
New Coke.
Politicians, though, are the only ones who enact their stubborn visions into laws that are difficult to undo.
Jul '11
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Certainly a great tribute to cinema. I enjoyed it even if the characters were somewhat transparent since the real star was the budding industry itself.
Aug '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
See the Transformers in a whole new dimension - Transformers 1-D!!!
Jun '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Great to see Ricochet is still the place to go for high culture.
Aug '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Harold and Kumar's Very 3-D Christmas was TOTALLY worth the 3-D.
The wisps of CGI marijuana smoke was the most inventive use of 3-D ever. FACT!
May '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Oooh, I'm glad you wrote that. I had thought its run in the theaters was over. I've now set aside a couple of hours this Saturday to watch it.
Dec '11
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
Great. Now if I want to enjoy a movie, I have to accept the headache.
Nov '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
The glasses give me a headache!
May '10
Re: 3D Films Are Nothing More Than a Gimmick
I don't see how this "flies in the face of reality". I and many people I know don't have any physiological problems with 3D movies. I really liked the 3D-ness of Avatar; in fact that is the only thing that made it worth watching. For other movies, I have passed on the 3D option and watched plain 2D. The market will determine how this new technology is eventually implemented. If you don't like 3D movies just don't watch them. Even if they film all movies "exclusively in 3D in the future", they can just remove one of the two images and you have a regular 2D movie again. So what's the big complaint?