
Studios love 3D because they can charge more for it, but with the exception of a few who truly love it (James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese of late), most filmmakers seem like they just sort of go along with it as a compromise. “Eh, sure, go ahead and convert it to 3D if you must, just leave me alone.” Chris Nolan, on the other hand, has earned the right (read: the money) to tell the studio to suck his jeans if he wants to. And that’s why The Dark Knight Rises, the most anticipated movie of the year and probably the easiest to get people to pay a premium for, won’t be in 3D.
“The question of 3-D is a very straightforward one,” Nolan said in a recent interview. “I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for.
“It’s up to the audience to tell us how they want to watch the movies. More people go see these films in 2-D, and so it’s difficult data to interpret. And I certainly don’t want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price.”
For some filmmakers, you could ascribe not wanting to shoot in 3D to simple laziness, since the 3D rigs are more complicated and less maneuverable (The Avengers was post-converted for similar reasons). But not in Nolan’s case.
Nolan shot nearly half of his Batman finale using bulky IMAX cameras, whose 70mm frame is about 10 times the size of standard movie film. He also insisted that distributor Warner Bros. release The Dark Knight Rises in at least 100 IMAX cinemas that can project it on film rather than in the digital format that has been gradually replacing celluloid. [Salon]
Basically, Chris Nolan cares, and that’s why people like him. He’s like a British Ryan Gosling in that way.
I won’t be surprised if filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron and especially Martin Scorsese eventually find worthwhile, creative uses for 3D, but in the vast majority of cases, it’s kind of just a pain in the ass. Your eyes are already doing a perfectly adequate job interpreting a 2D image to give the illusion of three dimensionality, adding another layer is only more realistic in the sense that a pop-up book is more realistic than a regular book. And even if it is infinitesimally more “immersive,” you still have to contend with a couple pretty huge drawbacks – having to wear dumb glasses for an entire movie, and a screen that’s 20 percent dimmer. I don’t want to wear glasses. What am I, a nerd? I’m a grown man who wants to spend his Saturday nights watching superhero movies, not some kind of nerd.



“I never meet anyone who is willing to disagree with me about 3D.”
That shit hurts my eyes.
It’s good for animated films, but that’s it.
Actually I think it’s worse in many ways for animated films. Animation typically has a much more noticeable color and light scheme, and since 3D cuts color and light almost in half, you lose a lot. I saw UP in 3D and wished I hadn’t. It was like watching it on an old tube TV through a crappy pair of sunglasses.
Really? I thought Up looked great in 3D. Mainly because in stead of having a moving pop-up book in front of me, they used it to fill out the background and landscapes.
I saw Up in 3D and I hated it. The 3D kept making my eyes water. Stupid 3D, trying to make me look all queer.
Vince, are you *trying* to get melvin’d today?
Half? Where do you get your data?
The type of 3D matters (RealD vs everything else) as well as the theater you see it in. Unfortunately it’s not consistent and a crappy theater is going to make 3D look even crappier.
I’ve had good luck with animation. Despicable Me looked fantastic in 3D. My all-time favorite 3D movie was Coraline. If it’s shot in 3D and the director knows what the hell he’s doing as far as setting up shots (depth, color) it can turn out very well.
Prometheus was processed differently for 2D and 3D. Scott went out of his way to brighten the 3D version so the experience was more similar to the 2D ‘print’ (print in quotes because it was shot digitally.) I thought the final 3D presentation was extremely well done.
What sucks is that 1) Some directors, when given a 3D rig, have no idea what to do with it and 2) post-conversion blows. The ratio of decent-looking 3D against crappy looking is 1:10 or maybe even worse. So the overall perception of nerds like us that read this blog is that 3D sucks. In the right hands it can be spectacular but there are only 2 or 3 sets of hands in Hollywood that are right for the job.
…or something super-stylized like Alice in Wonderland. Otherwise, it’s a pain in the ass. Greasy, scratched glasses, holding your head “just right.” After Tron and Green Hornet, I swore off 3D. But I will def be seeing Batman in IMAX.
Seriously, I wonder what percentage of 3D tickets are sold to people who’d rather watching it in 2D, but didn’t have options. I bet it’s pretty high.
I saw Prometheus (twice) in 3D because I wanted to see it on the IMAX screen and there wasn’t an a 2D IMAX option. I really felt like it made the action sequences fuzzy and less clear, which I wasn’t happy about. I don’t know how it compared to the 2D non-IMAX version, but I have to imagine it was crisper.
Had there been a 2D IMAX I would never have gone near the 3D version.
Guess I’m lucky I live in a media-friendly city. I had the choice on Prometheus and IMAX and saw it twice in 3D. I liked it. I thought all the hologram stuff and especially the residual/ghost effect was pretty boss.
Rush Limbaugh is fat!
*crickets chirping*
Aw, crap, I’m really off today.
Hey girl I just want you to enjoy my 2D cause my love is 4E
Scorsese seems the most amenable to adapting to new technologies – didn’t he announce recently that he was only shooting digitally from now on (vs film)?
“Pfft! I bet he only wears that scarf when he’s cold.” – Wes Anderson
this^
“I say, my dear, I shall gladly escort you home, it’s nearing my bedtime and I do like that we should both get our full eight hours. Health first, you know!”
i wear glasses already. 3D is a huge pain for me because its glasses on top of glasses. i suspect that i never see the movie properly because of this. so i spend the entire time adjusting the lenses.
i saw avatar in 3D, which i guess was a good idea because the 3D stuff was the only interesting part of that piece of crap. but since then, if i either see the film in 2D or, if there’s no other option, i just don’t see it.
As things are now most people have to go a week without groceries if they want a popcorn & soda when they go see a movie. If this at least leaves me enough cash after it all to whip some kid’s ass at Tekken a few times I’d say it’s a step in the right direction
Rather than waste time filming things in 3D (or post-converting them) I really wish filmmakers would just take more time with their scripts, really focus on the visual elements of any given project, and deliver something they can be proud of – a scene (no matter how out-of-context) with Reginald Veljohnson confessing that he shot a kid
WTF, man. I’ve never seen Die Hard. It’s third down on my Netflix queue. Thanks for nothin’.
I don’t know what he’s talking about; a die cannot possibly have less than 4 sides.
Anyway, I ain’t fer it, I’m again’ it.
Clearly, Christopher Nolan never met Hitler.
WHAT?
As in, people who like 3D are a bunch of fucking Nazis.
I’d call you a clever girl, but you’re really not all that clever now, are you?
I would gladly pay the 3-D price for a non-3-D IMAX film. That should be the next step. I can’t get that sort of great, crisp movie experience in my home. 3-D is a fad and a poor one.
My complaint is simple: I wear glasses already. I’m supposed to wear TWO pairs of glasses at the same time in order to watch a movie? Na ga da it.
Or take the glasses off, squint at blue people for two hours and have a headache for the next three days. On the plus side, my migraine had more character development.
Prescription 3D glasses, man. You think I’m kidding …
Not True. I have met Christopher Nolan and I like 3D!
Is he saying we should all shoot IMAX film for dramas???? Now THAT is practical.
Well… I do not like 3D as it is now. No matter what I tried, it have been awful – double vision or red/green mess or … – or all of it. Somehow I cannot adjust to it.
However, when it will be like Star Trek holodeck – ok, then I will use it.
I’m holding out for movies to reach the sate of immersiveness as demonstrated in Brainstorm. Specifically reverse-cowgirl type movies.
As I creep closer to 40, I find it interesting that one of my favorite “advancements” of the past couple of years is that second run “2-dollar” theaters are slowly but surely converting to digital projectors. It’s a lot easier rolling the dice on JOHN CARTER a month later for just two bucks and getting digital 3D in 7.1 Surround.
This is a good point. I have seen some prints of movies that were only 2 or 3 months old in dollar theaters that looked like absolute shit.
Avatar looked kind of neat, but I just saw Spider-Man in 3D and there was absolutely no reason for that film to be in 3D. The depth of field in the film was never that varied, so most of the time there was absolutely no difference between 2D or 3D.
Nolan looks like Cary Elwes in that picture.
If Cary Elwes tried to chew on a bunch of live wasps.
I think he’s right. I’ve seen plenty of 3D defenders on imdb and other websites, but in real life, I’ve never met anyone who likes 3D. I’m guessing most of the 3D defenders are James Cameron fanboys who can’t accept that Cameron was wrong about 3D being a game-changer.
hoo boy.
“What am I, a nerd? I’m a grown man who wants to spend his Saturday nights watching superhero movies, not some kind of nerd.”
That’s like saying…
” What am I, a Math Genius? I’m a grown man who wants to spend his Saturday nights calculating and crunching numbers, not some kind of Math Genius.”
Sigh…
Hi, I’m sarcasm. Have we met?
I’ve seen a handful over the years and never really enjoyed the experience. There always seems to be a darker tint to the over all film (Avatar excluded from what I’d read and heard, didn’t see it in 3D myself)…but the last film I saw in 3D was the final straw, John Carter…was not impressed at all.
If I have a choice to see a film in 2D or 3D I will always (now) pick the 2D and simply enjoy the film for it’s actual content and not the added on gimmick of 3D.
The more I think about it the more I hate the whole marketing ploy and process.
I doubt if I will ever see another 3D film period…if I have to I’ll simply wait for the dvd release.