Here's an essay I handed in for my English-100 final. It landed me an A. Let me know what you think!
-----
New Dimensions: The Undeniable Merit of 3D
In the past year, we have seen a monumental spike in the amount of 3D films that are flooding into theatres. With the almost obscenely large box-office gross of Avatar, James Cameron showed us exactly what was possible with developing 3D technology. Now, it seems that every film that is being released is being released in 3D, be it Animated, Horror or Action films; there seems to be no stone unturned. As the master of the 3D universe, James Cameron, puts it
Weve demonstrated that the 3D market is an extremely lucrative market
and this is not a fad, this is not something that is going to go away.(Lyus).
In this essay, I will explore the past and present of 3D films, as well as gaze into what we can expect to see, from 3D without the glasses, to further integration into your home theatre. As well as address the criticisms of 3D, and prove that 3D is an incredibly valuable tool to the future of filmmaking and the theatre experience, and that its more than just a cheap cash grab.
Years before James Cameron took us to Pandora, or we were following
Alice down the rabbit hole in Tim Burtons latest film, 3D had already come and gone, written off as a fad and often reserved for kids movies such as Spy Kids 3D. 3D technology initially started with a toy that most of us remember from our childhoods, the View Master. For those unsure as to what it was, the View Master was essentially a set of binoculars that you would insert a paper disc with images on it
into. Each eye would be shown a separate image and your brain would interpret the two images as one 3D image. This nifty little toy first showed up in 1939 at New Yorks World Fair and presently has 25 different View-Master models and over 1.5 billion disks made(Burke). From here, technology moved into films, the new technology was, again based on our eyes ability of our eyes to see two images that are slightly different, the images displayed on screen would be colored one red and one blue, or one red and one green depending on the film. The 3D glasses would have two different colored lenses corresponding to those on screen, allowing each eye to see one of the colours on screen. The red light is perceived by the eye with the blue lens and
blue light is perceived by the eye with the red lens. While this method can effective for some of the more popular 3D pop-out gags, the color effects can be considerably harder on your eyes than the polarized version we see in theatres these days. Typically, these early 3D films were campy horror or sci-fi films, which leads me to believe that this is the reason the films died off, not entirely, but significantly between the time of their inception until recently.
The dominant method of 3D presentation these days, at least before Avatar changed everything once again, is the Polarized or RealD system. Films like My Bloody Valentine, Coraline and the recent success How To Train Your Dragon. As well, of course, Avatar was filmed with James Camerons own twist on RealD and brand new 3D technology, which will be touched on later. RealD is shot using the same basic principle as its predecessor, it uses two slightly offset images, now though, it only requires one projector which projects at 144 frames opposed to the traditional twenty-four frames per second. John Lyus describes exactly how this system works:
With the RealD system a single "time" of film, the two images that
comprise one moment during filming, is projected three times. With the polarizer in place, this means that for each frame filmed, your eyes get alternating views of the frame three times each, thus accounting for the 144 fps rate of projection. The duplication of the individual frames is designed to reduce the flickering and stuttering effects that can occur if each eye is only exposed to an image once every 1/12 of a second.
The first time we saw this technology used was in the 2005 film: Chicken Little. The family film was released in both 2D and 3D and the latter made almost 3 times what the 2D version of the film made. Not long after that we would see the RealD technology put to successful use in 2009s remake of My Bloody Valentine, which had a total domestic gross of $51,545,952.
Of course you cant discuss 3D without talking about the man who may
have changed the face of film making forever: James Cameron. After sitting on the Avatar script for 15 years, and after having achieved extreme commercial success with films like Titanic, Terminator and Aliens, James decided it was time to move on with his dream project and developed a whole new kind of stereoscopic cameras. Cameras that Wren says: changes the ballpark of moving images. What makes these developments so significant, is that instead of the typical flat scenes with the occasional gag jumping out at you, be it a car tire or a blood spray, the scenes in Avatar have depth and layers to them, allowing a further immersion into the world Cameron created, in effect, the cinema screen becomes a theatre stage (Wren). The only real similarity between it and the older days of 3D cinema is that you still have to wear glasses to experience the effect. As opposed to the cheap, often filmsy, cardboard glasses that you would have gotten before, you have sturdy untinted polarized glasses which have shown not to cause the same headaches experienced with the older technology. Wren explains how these glasses translate the image into 3D:
Each lens has a different filter, which removes different part of the
image as it enters each eye. This gives the brain the illusion it is seeing the picture from two different angles, creating the 3D effect.
As if it werent enough to invent a new kind of 3D camera, Cameron also
developed a virtual camera in the form of a hand held monitor that allowed him to move through the world he had created. In essence it worked to allow Cameron to direct the film as if it was computer game. If he wanted to change the viewpoint, he could click a few buttons on a
mouse and a computer would redraw the virtual world from the new perspective (Wren). There is no denying that Cameron has truly changed the way that we view films, and as this technology progresses it is
safe to say that movies will be drastically changing in the not-so distant future. As Cameron starts work on Avatar 2, we can only guess how hes going to change things yet again, and how many more innovations one man can make.
The real issue with inventing new technology is that you begin to get critical of the older versions, or the inferior versions. This is very true in the case of James Cameron. He is very opposed to the inferior versions of 3D, essentially any film that doesnt use his technology, and especially those films that are shot in 2D and rendered in to 3D in
post-production, such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans. As Cameron puts it:
Its just not the way to do it, if you want to make a movie in 3D, make the movie in 3D! And by the way, it should be a filmmaker driven process, not a studio driven process. I've been telling filmmakers for the last five years, [there's] this whole new way topaint, a whole colors, and they've all kind of hung back. Now it's getting crammed down from above, and people are getting told to make movies in 3D, and it should've been the other way around, they should've been banging on the doors of the studio saying, 'I want to make a movie in 3D, let me
do it!' And it didn't happen (Billington).
While Im less inclined to agree with one of the biggest egos in the
business, this is one aspect I agree with. I see absolutely no problem with making a 3D movie, but it should be made as a 3D movie from the beginning. Otherwise you wind up with old-style feeling 3D films that cause headaches and give 3D films an increasingly bad reputation. On the other hand, this post-production conversion seems to be a natural reaction to the obvious financial success that is the 3D film market. Its normal to see business people jump onto bandwagons when they see how successful other films are. Its my opinion that this isnt something that we can stop, well just have to accept them and if they are so objectionable to people then they can choose to see the films in 2D.
As with everything, not everyone is quite as ready to accept this major step forward in cinema. Even Michael Bay initially had fears, prior to Camerons Avatar. In an interview posted on Slash Film in April of 2009, Bay said 3D? I dont know I might be old school. I think it might be a gimmick (Sciretta). On the subject of Micheal Bay, Mack Rawdens article on Cinema Blend, about his complete displeasure with 3D and where he felt 3D was going stated:
I hate most Michael Bay movies because theyre just shiny things. An
hour and a half of visually stimulating nothingness followed by ten minute conversations consisting of, Were you watching when that guy got impaled on the rusty pole? But most of you goddamn idiots, most of you goddamn members of Ritalin Generation love Michael Bay movies because, to you, visually stimulating nothingness is everything. Well, going to the movies shouldnt be vapid, mindless entertainment. You should cry; you should laugh; you should fall in love with the characters; you should fall out of love with the characters; you should think; you should question; you should ponder; you should, flat out, be alive. Ive never felt any of those things because glasses tricked
me into thinking actors were stepping down off the screen. (Rawden)
The issue I take with Rawdens argument is this: he completely misses
the fact that not all films need to be life-altering and brilliant works of cinema. The reason that the general audience goes to the theatre is to escape from life for 2 hours. If the movie is brilliant and mind-altering, great, but this shouldnt demerit movies that exist simply for their entertainment value. What better way is there to present an escapist film in 3D? Adding to the entertainment shouldnt be demonized.
It seems quite clear that 3D is here to stay. With the recent release of 3D televisions and the ever-evolving technology behind both home and theatres 3D experiences, we can either embrace this advancement or we can continue to talk into the wind about how much we dislike it. I have to agree with Cameron when he said:
"With digital 3D projection, we will be entering a new age of cinema.
Audiences will be seeing something which was never technically possible before the age of digital cinema - a stunning visual experience which `turbo charges` the viewing of the biggest, must-see movies. The biggest action, visual effects and fantasy movies will soon be shot in 3D. And all-CG animated films can easily be converted to 3D, without additional cost if it is done as they are made. Soon audiences will associate 3D with the highest level of visual content in the market, and seek out that premium experience."
I really see no problem with this, and it seems to me that this emerging technology will be extremely important in creating a new and interesting experience for the audience and the filmmaker.
Billington, Alex. James Cameron Explains Why Hollywood is Screwing Up
3D. First Showing
(2010): n.pag. Feb.2010. Web.
Burke, Galen. James Cameron Talks The Future of 3D Movies. Obsessable
(2009): n.pag.
Feb.2009. Web.
Lyus, John. The 3rd Dimension: How 3D movies Work. Hey U Guys (2010):
n.pag. Mar.2010.
Web.
Rawden, Mack. Why 3D Movies Represent Everything Wrong With Our
Country. Cinema Blend
(2009): n.pag. Mar.2009. Web.
Sciretta, Peter. Michael Bay Thinks 3D Films Might Be A Gimmick. Slash
Film (2009): n.pag.
Apr.2010. Web.
Wren, Eddie. Avatar: How James Cameron's 3D film could change the face
of cinema forever.
Mail Online. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 26 August 2009. Web.
-----
New Dimensions: The Undeniable Merit of 3D
In the past year, we have seen a monumental spike in the amount of 3D films that are flooding into theatres. With the almost obscenely large box-office gross of Avatar, James Cameron showed us exactly what was possible with developing 3D technology. Now, it seems that every film that is being released is being released in 3D, be it Animated, Horror or Action films; there seems to be no stone unturned. As the master of the 3D universe, James Cameron, puts it
Weve demonstrated that the 3D market is an extremely lucrative market
and this is not a fad, this is not something that is going to go away.(Lyus).
In this essay, I will explore the past and present of 3D films, as well as gaze into what we can expect to see, from 3D without the glasses, to further integration into your home theatre. As well as address the criticisms of 3D, and prove that 3D is an incredibly valuable tool to the future of filmmaking and the theatre experience, and that its more than just a cheap cash grab.
Years before James Cameron took us to Pandora, or we were following
Alice down the rabbit hole in Tim Burtons latest film, 3D had already come and gone, written off as a fad and often reserved for kids movies such as Spy Kids 3D. 3D technology initially started with a toy that most of us remember from our childhoods, the View Master. For those unsure as to what it was, the View Master was essentially a set of binoculars that you would insert a paper disc with images on it
into. Each eye would be shown a separate image and your brain would interpret the two images as one 3D image. This nifty little toy first showed up in 1939 at New Yorks World Fair and presently has 25 different View-Master models and over 1.5 billion disks made(Burke). From here, technology moved into films, the new technology was, again based on our eyes ability of our eyes to see two images that are slightly different, the images displayed on screen would be colored one red and one blue, or one red and one green depending on the film. The 3D glasses would have two different colored lenses corresponding to those on screen, allowing each eye to see one of the colours on screen. The red light is perceived by the eye with the blue lens and
blue light is perceived by the eye with the red lens. While this method can effective for some of the more popular 3D pop-out gags, the color effects can be considerably harder on your eyes than the polarized version we see in theatres these days. Typically, these early 3D films were campy horror or sci-fi films, which leads me to believe that this is the reason the films died off, not entirely, but significantly between the time of their inception until recently.
The dominant method of 3D presentation these days, at least before Avatar changed everything once again, is the Polarized or RealD system. Films like My Bloody Valentine, Coraline and the recent success How To Train Your Dragon. As well, of course, Avatar was filmed with James Camerons own twist on RealD and brand new 3D technology, which will be touched on later. RealD is shot using the same basic principle as its predecessor, it uses two slightly offset images, now though, it only requires one projector which projects at 144 frames opposed to the traditional twenty-four frames per second. John Lyus describes exactly how this system works:
With the RealD system a single "time" of film, the two images that
comprise one moment during filming, is projected three times. With the polarizer in place, this means that for each frame filmed, your eyes get alternating views of the frame three times each, thus accounting for the 144 fps rate of projection. The duplication of the individual frames is designed to reduce the flickering and stuttering effects that can occur if each eye is only exposed to an image once every 1/12 of a second.
The first time we saw this technology used was in the 2005 film: Chicken Little. The family film was released in both 2D and 3D and the latter made almost 3 times what the 2D version of the film made. Not long after that we would see the RealD technology put to successful use in 2009s remake of My Bloody Valentine, which had a total domestic gross of $51,545,952.
Of course you cant discuss 3D without talking about the man who may
have changed the face of film making forever: James Cameron. After sitting on the Avatar script for 15 years, and after having achieved extreme commercial success with films like Titanic, Terminator and Aliens, James decided it was time to move on with his dream project and developed a whole new kind of stereoscopic cameras. Cameras that Wren says: changes the ballpark of moving images. What makes these developments so significant, is that instead of the typical flat scenes with the occasional gag jumping out at you, be it a car tire or a blood spray, the scenes in Avatar have depth and layers to them, allowing a further immersion into the world Cameron created, in effect, the cinema screen becomes a theatre stage (Wren). The only real similarity between it and the older days of 3D cinema is that you still have to wear glasses to experience the effect. As opposed to the cheap, often filmsy, cardboard glasses that you would have gotten before, you have sturdy untinted polarized glasses which have shown not to cause the same headaches experienced with the older technology. Wren explains how these glasses translate the image into 3D:
Each lens has a different filter, which removes different part of the
image as it enters each eye. This gives the brain the illusion it is seeing the picture from two different angles, creating the 3D effect.
As if it werent enough to invent a new kind of 3D camera, Cameron also
developed a virtual camera in the form of a hand held monitor that allowed him to move through the world he had created. In essence it worked to allow Cameron to direct the film as if it was computer game. If he wanted to change the viewpoint, he could click a few buttons on a
mouse and a computer would redraw the virtual world from the new perspective (Wren). There is no denying that Cameron has truly changed the way that we view films, and as this technology progresses it is
safe to say that movies will be drastically changing in the not-so distant future. As Cameron starts work on Avatar 2, we can only guess how hes going to change things yet again, and how many more innovations one man can make.
The real issue with inventing new technology is that you begin to get critical of the older versions, or the inferior versions. This is very true in the case of James Cameron. He is very opposed to the inferior versions of 3D, essentially any film that doesnt use his technology, and especially those films that are shot in 2D and rendered in to 3D in
post-production, such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans. As Cameron puts it:
Its just not the way to do it, if you want to make a movie in 3D, make the movie in 3D! And by the way, it should be a filmmaker driven process, not a studio driven process. I've been telling filmmakers for the last five years, [there's] this whole new way topaint, a whole colors, and they've all kind of hung back. Now it's getting crammed down from above, and people are getting told to make movies in 3D, and it should've been the other way around, they should've been banging on the doors of the studio saying, 'I want to make a movie in 3D, let me
do it!' And it didn't happen (Billington).
While Im less inclined to agree with one of the biggest egos in the
business, this is one aspect I agree with. I see absolutely no problem with making a 3D movie, but it should be made as a 3D movie from the beginning. Otherwise you wind up with old-style feeling 3D films that cause headaches and give 3D films an increasingly bad reputation. On the other hand, this post-production conversion seems to be a natural reaction to the obvious financial success that is the 3D film market. Its normal to see business people jump onto bandwagons when they see how successful other films are. Its my opinion that this isnt something that we can stop, well just have to accept them and if they are so objectionable to people then they can choose to see the films in 2D.
As with everything, not everyone is quite as ready to accept this major step forward in cinema. Even Michael Bay initially had fears, prior to Camerons Avatar. In an interview posted on Slash Film in April of 2009, Bay said 3D? I dont know I might be old school. I think it might be a gimmick (Sciretta). On the subject of Micheal Bay, Mack Rawdens article on Cinema Blend, about his complete displeasure with 3D and where he felt 3D was going stated:
I hate most Michael Bay movies because theyre just shiny things. An
hour and a half of visually stimulating nothingness followed by ten minute conversations consisting of, Were you watching when that guy got impaled on the rusty pole? But most of you goddamn idiots, most of you goddamn members of Ritalin Generation love Michael Bay movies because, to you, visually stimulating nothingness is everything. Well, going to the movies shouldnt be vapid, mindless entertainment. You should cry; you should laugh; you should fall in love with the characters; you should fall out of love with the characters; you should think; you should question; you should ponder; you should, flat out, be alive. Ive never felt any of those things because glasses tricked
me into thinking actors were stepping down off the screen. (Rawden)
The issue I take with Rawdens argument is this: he completely misses
the fact that not all films need to be life-altering and brilliant works of cinema. The reason that the general audience goes to the theatre is to escape from life for 2 hours. If the movie is brilliant and mind-altering, great, but this shouldnt demerit movies that exist simply for their entertainment value. What better way is there to present an escapist film in 3D? Adding to the entertainment shouldnt be demonized.
It seems quite clear that 3D is here to stay. With the recent release of 3D televisions and the ever-evolving technology behind both home and theatres 3D experiences, we can either embrace this advancement or we can continue to talk into the wind about how much we dislike it. I have to agree with Cameron when he said:
"With digital 3D projection, we will be entering a new age of cinema.
Audiences will be seeing something which was never technically possible before the age of digital cinema - a stunning visual experience which `turbo charges` the viewing of the biggest, must-see movies. The biggest action, visual effects and fantasy movies will soon be shot in 3D. And all-CG animated films can easily be converted to 3D, without additional cost if it is done as they are made. Soon audiences will associate 3D with the highest level of visual content in the market, and seek out that premium experience."
I really see no problem with this, and it seems to me that this emerging technology will be extremely important in creating a new and interesting experience for the audience and the filmmaker.
Billington, Alex. James Cameron Explains Why Hollywood is Screwing Up
3D. First Showing
(2010): n.pag. Feb.2010. Web.
Burke, Galen. James Cameron Talks The Future of 3D Movies. Obsessable
(2009): n.pag.
Feb.2009. Web.
Lyus, John. The 3rd Dimension: How 3D movies Work. Hey U Guys (2010):
n.pag. Mar.2010.
Web.
Rawden, Mack. Why 3D Movies Represent Everything Wrong With Our
Country. Cinema Blend
(2009): n.pag. Mar.2009. Web.
Sciretta, Peter. Michael Bay Thinks 3D Films Might Be A Gimmick. Slash
Film (2009): n.pag.
Apr.2010. Web.
Wren, Eddie. Avatar: How James Cameron's 3D film could change the face
of cinema forever.
Mail Online. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 26 August 2009. Web.
cavort:
Agreed.
bar1ey:
'cause i'm a persuasive writer like that 