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)
That and the directors just don't seem able to stop playing with it and keep trying to make me go WOW when I'd rather it was just a seamless part of the production.
Lucas is working on it.
http://www.thewrap.com/article/star-wars-3d-works-13149
This technology also ruined the MJ tribute at the Grammy's for me.
I'd like a pair of my own 3D glasses. D:
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.
Big deal. It's no better than the Viewmaster I had when I was a kid. Except it moves.