Sick of having 3D films shoved in your face? Well, it's too bad because studios aren't planning to bury the technology anytime soon. However, here's something that might make you feel a little better; a "top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles" going by the pseudonym Alexander Murphy recently published an article on Gizmodo called, 'The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam,' and it's packed with information confirming that the extra dimension really is as pointless as it feels. The rage evoked by dropping extra cash on a 3D movie ticket is completely justifiable.

Post-converted or shot in 3D, the director of a 3D film still needs to be conscious of how the additional dimension will appear on screen, but an issue specific to the films in the post-conversion class is layering. "Endless rotoscoping provides layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers." This may be great for films like 'The Final Destination,' which primarily use the technology to throw things at the audience, but it'll never achieve the sensation of a film like 'Avatar' during which the 3D world on the screen feels real.
On top of not looking right, the issue of making items appear as though they're in the theater is that the frame chops off the content. Think back to 'Alice in Wonderland;' remember those plants growing during the end credits? Looked great, right? Well, that's because that portion of the film had "a false black edge to the screen." The problem is, if Tim Burton opted to use this edge throughout the film he'd be cutting off a serious amount of screen space.

You know what's one of the most frustrating items discussed in this article? Studios are spending tons of money either converting their material or filming in 3D using double the resources just to hand you a pair of glasses worth $.03 that actually reduce half the amount of light - and very few theaters, if any, compensate for the loss.

The moral of this article is, "do it right or just don't do it" and I couldn't agree more. Yes, 'Avatar' was groundbreaking, but since, have you seen one film that justified the use of 3D technology? Perhaps 'TRON: Legacy' made the best recent attempt, but I'd like to bet the costumes, action and settings are just as mesmerizing without it. It's really not easy to pick out films that make wearing those stupid plastic glasses worth it. On the other hand, naming a bunch that didn't is quite easy – 'Alice in Wonderland,' 'Clash of the Titans,' 'The Last Airbender' and 'My Soul to Take,' just to name a few.

It just flat out isn't fair. We're basically paying more for a lesser product. Like one Gizmodo writer mentioned in his 'Alice in Wonderland' 3D report, "I like everything about the movie except the 3D." Odds are, that wouldn't be the case with 'Clash of the Titans,' 'The Last Airbender' or 'My Soul to Take,' but perhaps some would have been less bitter about seeing them had they not paid such an exorbitant amount to do so.
categories Movies, Cinematical