Tuesday, July 26, 2011
3-D Won't Survive
Here's what I know. This new 3-D revival in theaters? It won't succeed. Not because of the problems, not because of the poorly executed effects. It's because no one ever needed 3-D to tell a story. You say, "but Eric, that's because the technology wasn't there."
Bull. No one can deny the technology is evolving, and evolving nicely. It's gone from red and blue glasses to chromatic, polarized stuff, to things that don't even need glasses like the Nintendo 3DS and certain TVs. 3-D has never been better, yet no one's embracing the revolution. Remember DVD's? Remember how fast they were adopted? 3D should be like that, but it's not. And it never will be. Because 3-D's not about how good the technology is. Because we already have the ability to make 3-D effects in story-telling presentations. We always have.
It's called plays.
Or musicals, or operas, or tragedies, or whatever you want. All the way back to the time of Greek plays. They've had plenty of time to incorporate 3-D effects in plays. Things jumping out at you, splattering you, flying over you, flinging in and out. No, they used none of that.
You know what they used? Actors. A set. Costumes. A script.
You know what they didn't use? Eyes that popped out over the audience. Credits jumping out at you. Lighting. Computers. A "physical consultant". A "film color timer". A key grip. A best boy. Special effects (unless you call using a trap door and a crane special).
There are 1,470 people listed in the IMDB credits for Avatar's visual effects. There is one writing credit and five staff positions with "script" in the title. Think about that for a minute.