With the rise in popularity of a certain movie lately, and its stunning advancements in 3-D technology, the titular question is being asked worldwide. The short answer? Yes, but it won't look very good. Shucks, there goes my dream of seeing The Empire Strikes Back in glorious 3-D.
The Michael Jackson tribute at the Grammys last night, for instance, caused headaches and nausea among many. This is a sign that despite the verdict, prepare for a whole new way to decide if you want to see a movie in 3-D or not, because the bad versions are coming.
Link to Slate article. (Photo: Wikipedia)
The Michael Jackson tribute at the Grammys last night, for instance, caused headaches and nausea among many. This is a sign that despite the verdict, prepare for a whole new way to decide if you want to see a movie in 3-D or not, because the bad versions are coming.
Shooting a film in 3-D requires some careful decision-making so as to maximize the depth effect while minimizing potential eyestrain. Directors may feel constrained by these limitations. In any case, not every 3-D director agrees that conversion works just as well. James Cameron, for one, has criticized Tim Burton for using this approach in his upcoming feature, Alice in Wonderland: "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2-D and convert to 3-D," he said.
Link to Slate article. (Photo: Wikipedia)
Big deal. It's no better than the Viewmaster I had when I was a kid. Except it moves.
It looks like a gooddamned cardboard cutout or a popup book. I was annoyed twofold because my boyfriend looked so unsexy with 3D glasses and it made wearing our normal glasses underneath a tad annoying.
If you want to offer a movie in 3D, go for it. But don't make it the only way to see it. It doesn't actually improve the viewing experience at all.
I'd like a pair of my own 3D glasses. D: