Well, that's what certain Hollywood types are saying, with James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar said to be the upcoming film that will blow our minds to small atoms with the 3D process, and with the remake of My Bloody Valentine done with the same technology.
It sounds like fun, admittedly, but I also can't help thinking there's a little hucksterism involved in this, a concerted, slightly desperate effort to convince a movie-going public that this is 'the way to go' and film, supposedly, will never be the same again.
I also get the feeling that there'll be some 3D product that will be astounding to watch, but will stink the place out if seen normally, allowing some right dogs to hit the screens, with the 3D process giving some crap filmmakers the chance to present low-quality, badly-scripted shite to squeeze through the radar, and hoping that it won't matter if we're all zonked out by lots of things flying through the screen at us to notice how crap the film is.
It's why I'm always unimpressed in some way when filmmakers and studios become hyper about the new technologies which will enhance the making of movies (film will be obsolete! Vision so sharp, you'll need eye-laser surgery after you've seen a film! Characters that interrupt the film to tell the audience someone's Vauxhall Picasso is holding up the car park!), because, when it comes down to it, it's all down to whether a film is capably scripted, acted or directed that matters to me personally. It's the film whose character and quality endures through the years rather than the technologies that supposedly enhance it. You can have enough HD in all the world, it'll only enable you to see tons of crap more clearly than ever before.
I'm sure 3D will be a hell of a knockout with all the strides technology has been making, but will it be a case of us all being impressed by the way a film is presented instead of the character of the film overall? Will the window dressing transcend what's supposed to be seen through the window itself?
It sounds like fun, admittedly, but I also can't help thinking there's a little hucksterism involved in this, a concerted, slightly desperate effort to convince a movie-going public that this is 'the way to go' and film, supposedly, will never be the same again.
I also get the feeling that there'll be some 3D product that will be astounding to watch, but will stink the place out if seen normally, allowing some right dogs to hit the screens, with the 3D process giving some crap filmmakers the chance to present low-quality, badly-scripted shite to squeeze through the radar, and hoping that it won't matter if we're all zonked out by lots of things flying through the screen at us to notice how crap the film is.
It's why I'm always unimpressed in some way when filmmakers and studios become hyper about the new technologies which will enhance the making of movies (film will be obsolete! Vision so sharp, you'll need eye-laser surgery after you've seen a film! Characters that interrupt the film to tell the audience someone's Vauxhall Picasso is holding up the car park!), because, when it comes down to it, it's all down to whether a film is capably scripted, acted or directed that matters to me personally. It's the film whose character and quality endures through the years rather than the technologies that supposedly enhance it. You can have enough HD in all the world, it'll only enable you to see tons of crap more clearly than ever before.
I'm sure 3D will be a hell of a knockout with all the strides technology has been making, but will it be a case of us all being impressed by the way a film is presented instead of the character of the film overall? Will the window dressing transcend what's supposed to be seen through the window itself?
Comment