OK, here's a bit of a challenge. Of course we hear people swearing left and right that 3-D is going to become the norm now, and those who don't like it, or who can't see the 3-D properly, or who just find the glasses a pain in the ass should move into the 21st century. Yadda-yadda.
These same folks bristle when guys like me pull out the "it's just a gimmick" argument.
So riddle me this: name me one 3-D movie ever made in which the 3-D is actually necessary to understanding the plot of the film, or is a major element of the storytelling.
Nothing to do with how the film looks. Nothing to do with "fully immersive" entertainment. I mean name me a single 3-D film made either going back to 1951-52 or even that's in production now in which the 3-D is no more than a gimmick.
I'll take a moment to diffuse the two obvious comebacks.
1. The move to color film. Yes, it too was a gimmick, except there have been thousands of movies in which the ability to see color in the image has been either helpful or necessary to understanding what is going on. "The man who killed the bank teller is the man wearing the red bandana". "Cut the BLUE wire". Film titles: "The Woman in Red" -- you don't see "The Woman in 3-D" making a lot of sense. Etc.
2. The move to sound. Well this one is a no-brainer. How many films can you name where "the creaking floorboard" moves the plot along? Or a character impersonating another person's voice is a plot point? Or the fact you can express a hell of a lot more plot in dialogue than in title cards with a half-dozen words (Shakespeare rendered as a silent film -- and it was attempted -- is too stupid to comprehend). In Robert Downey Jr.'s "Chaplin" there's a scene where Chaplin spends days trying to figure out how to express how a blind flower girl (in City Lights) mistakes the Tramp for a rich man, without using sound. He eventually figures out a workaround (the girl hears a car door slam and assumes the car belongs to the Tramp; the connection is made because in the Great Depression lots of people couldn't afford vehicles unless they were wealthy). But the point is made that sound could have been used to move the plot.
Other than "ooh it's neat" I can think of nothing that 3-D can offer other than a gimmick to sell 3-D TVs and movie tickets... can you?
Alex
These same folks bristle when guys like me pull out the "it's just a gimmick" argument.
So riddle me this: name me one 3-D movie ever made in which the 3-D is actually necessary to understanding the plot of the film, or is a major element of the storytelling.
Nothing to do with how the film looks. Nothing to do with "fully immersive" entertainment. I mean name me a single 3-D film made either going back to 1951-52 or even that's in production now in which the 3-D is no more than a gimmick.
I'll take a moment to diffuse the two obvious comebacks.
1. The move to color film. Yes, it too was a gimmick, except there have been thousands of movies in which the ability to see color in the image has been either helpful or necessary to understanding what is going on. "The man who killed the bank teller is the man wearing the red bandana". "Cut the BLUE wire". Film titles: "The Woman in Red" -- you don't see "The Woman in 3-D" making a lot of sense. Etc.
2. The move to sound. Well this one is a no-brainer. How many films can you name where "the creaking floorboard" moves the plot along? Or a character impersonating another person's voice is a plot point? Or the fact you can express a hell of a lot more plot in dialogue than in title cards with a half-dozen words (Shakespeare rendered as a silent film -- and it was attempted -- is too stupid to comprehend). In Robert Downey Jr.'s "Chaplin" there's a scene where Chaplin spends days trying to figure out how to express how a blind flower girl (in City Lights) mistakes the Tramp for a rich man, without using sound. He eventually figures out a workaround (the girl hears a car door slam and assumes the car belongs to the Tramp; the connection is made because in the Great Depression lots of people couldn't afford vehicles unless they were wealthy). But the point is made that sound could have been used to move the plot.
Other than "ooh it's neat" I can think of nothing that 3-D can offer other than a gimmick to sell 3-D TVs and movie tickets... can you?
Alex
After she woke up she was still seeing in 3D and it enabled her to kill Freddy in 3D.
