I've got some bones to pick with Hollywood. I frankly am offended by the quality of some action movies these days. Clearly these directors think that we as a society can no longer be entertained simply by some good, down to earth fighting. No, we need shaky cam, lots of blood, and bizarre lighting effects that frankly give me a lot of headaches. Worst part? Now they're taking the Good Ol' classic action adventures and ruining them by pretending that digital 3D is any good. Just saw that Star Wars Episode 1 is coming back to theaters. Lucas is re-releasing it just so it can be in 3D. For those of us who remember watching The Phantom Menace on the big screen in 2D (12 times before it left theaters, buddy. I know that movie), I'd just like to collectively recall how blown away we were with the sights and sounds of what turned out to be the first of three pretty epic sci-fi action-adventure movies. For those of you who have any illusion that this will be just as eye popping as the first time around was, don't. It will look ridiculous. Reason being, it won't be real 3D. It'll be that digital crap that gives everyone a headache. And in a movie with as much moving as happens in Episode 1...
See, this all has to do with the difference between True 3D and Digital 3D. Thing is, the whole concept of 3D movies is based around fooling your brain into thinking that what it's looking at is actually there, like just looking out a window. This works on a flat movie screen by projecting two different images (with some filtering provided by those silly glasses), one to each eye. This allows your brain to take those images and form them into an image with depth, that you see. This is what your eyes do all the time. So shouldn't that always work? Well, theoretically. But fact is, our brains aren't all that easy to fool. If you're really careful, and you film the whole movie with two cameras situated just so, you can pull it off. This is called True 3D, and it's pretty neat when done right. If you're lazy, then you just crop the whole thing in the editing room after filming it with just one camera. This is called Digital 3D, and boy can your eye tell the difference.
Examples. Avatar in 3D. Real thing, baby. They filmed that entire movie in 3D, and made a film so visually stunning that it was practically born for IMax. Avatar: The Last Airbender in 3D. Digital. Not filmed in 3D. As such, the 3D version was hard to see, and when it was light enough to see, you couldn't look at it because it would make you sick. This works okay if, like in Avatar, it's filmed that way from the get-go. If it's not... well, let's just say your brain can tell. And it doesn't like it.
So my question is, why do we need Star Wars in 3D? Heck, it was amazing the first time around. Changed the world. It's really quite timeless. So who says we need it in 3D? Like I said, I'm offended by what directors think I want to see these days. 'Cause let's face it, if you're not going to just do it right... I don't want to see it at all.
On the flip side of what Lucasarts is doing these days, there's a new movie they're producing called Red Tails that looks pretty fantastic. Good story, good characters, good acting... And lots of good old fashioned dog fights. I'm excited for that. Just don't let Michael Bay anywhere near it, please.
See, this all has to do with the difference between True 3D and Digital 3D. Thing is, the whole concept of 3D movies is based around fooling your brain into thinking that what it's looking at is actually there, like just looking out a window. This works on a flat movie screen by projecting two different images (with some filtering provided by those silly glasses), one to each eye. This allows your brain to take those images and form them into an image with depth, that you see. This is what your eyes do all the time. So shouldn't that always work? Well, theoretically. But fact is, our brains aren't all that easy to fool. If you're really careful, and you film the whole movie with two cameras situated just so, you can pull it off. This is called True 3D, and it's pretty neat when done right. If you're lazy, then you just crop the whole thing in the editing room after filming it with just one camera. This is called Digital 3D, and boy can your eye tell the difference.
Examples. Avatar in 3D. Real thing, baby. They filmed that entire movie in 3D, and made a film so visually stunning that it was practically born for IMax. Avatar: The Last Airbender in 3D. Digital. Not filmed in 3D. As such, the 3D version was hard to see, and when it was light enough to see, you couldn't look at it because it would make you sick. This works okay if, like in Avatar, it's filmed that way from the get-go. If it's not... well, let's just say your brain can tell. And it doesn't like it.
So my question is, why do we need Star Wars in 3D? Heck, it was amazing the first time around. Changed the world. It's really quite timeless. So who says we need it in 3D? Like I said, I'm offended by what directors think I want to see these days. 'Cause let's face it, if you're not going to just do it right... I don't want to see it at all.
On the flip side of what Lucasarts is doing these days, there's a new movie they're producing called Red Tails that looks pretty fantastic. Good story, good characters, good acting... And lots of good old fashioned dog fights. I'm excited for that. Just don't let Michael Bay anywhere near it, please.
Comments
Post a Comment