|
Polarized 3D projection combined with digital filming, projection and editing techniques is light years ahead of what was available 120, or even 60 years ago. I would go so far as to say that these technologies are instrumental to an optimum 3D experience, which is why we're seeing another resurgence.
Mr. Ebert's argument seems to be that because past great films were not made in 3D future films shouldn't be either. This is akin, to me, to arguing that because some of the great animated films of the past were produced by hand, CGI is a useless gimmick. The part of the article that strikes me as particularly bizarre is that he acknowledges that great directors like Scorcese and Herzog are likely to use it well, and that Cameron did a good job on Avatar; he's praising the technology here even as he tells us how useless it is.
The whole thing, once you parse out the 'I hate 3D' vibe, amounts to shitty films are shitty. Thank you, Rog, I never would've realized.
I also find it odd that he presents something like Maxivision as an alternative to 3D cinema, as if 3D and higher framerates are somehow incompatible.
As an aside, I watched How To Train Your Dragon in 3D, and can't imagine what it's like without the technology. No doubt I'll catch it in 2 dimensions eventually, and I have a feeling that it'll seem lacking in comparison. This was a film done from the ground up in 3D by a highly regarded animation studio; in other words, 3D done right.
So there.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said
- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
|