FAKE 3D CAN ALMOST BE JUST AS GOOD

[defrog]

John Scalzi’s written a good piece on Hollywood studios jumping on the 3D bandwagon, how it can result in poor quality 3D effects, and why this means that for once in his life, Michael Bay is right about something.

In essence, Bay is unhappy that his studio wants the third Transformers film converted into 3D (as opposed to a film like Avatar that was actually shot in 3D and designed for it):

I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process... Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you're thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn't going to be excellent, I don't want to do it.

I have to say, I’m glad to hear a major film director say it, even if it is Michael Bay. I’ve said elsewhere that while 3D looks better now than it ever did, it’s still a gimmick that’s mostly inessential to the experience unless the film is designed and filmed to make effective use of the 3D imagery (and I don’t mean spears or cars or cats or whatever leaping out at you).

And if yr going to ask me to pay extra money to watch a film with uncomfortable glasses on my face for a couple of hours until my head hurts, it had better be good 3D. Otherwise, I’m perfectly happy to watch the 2D version.

Unless it’s the Transformer films, I mean.

More than meets the eye,

This is dF