2-D or not 2-D? That is the question

Posted: October 6, 2010 in Entertainment, Movies, Musings, News, Opinion, Technology
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Paper glasses for viewing Anaglyphs.

Image via Wikipedia

Award-winning director James Cameron made a bold attempt to create a world of absolute beauty, with a mesmerizing fresh take on life-on-another-planet milieu, immersing us in a totally different world conceived entirely for three-dimension (3-D) viewing. Avatar created a huge impact in the 3-D film arena, and people are taking advantage of its massive success by incorporating this technology to the way we watch our favorite TV programs on the boob tube, to the way we look at newspaper photos on the broadsheet. The obvious forecast now is that this technology is fast becoming commercially available. But as its grip on the electronics market and from the rest who want to grab a piece of this golden pie continues to hold tighter and tighter, I only see a minor innovation in the movie experience department.  

When new movies begin to follow suit and shift from the standard 2-D offering to the new trend in film showing that is 3-D, it will not take long for our eyesight to adjust to the “extra dimension,” when having watched a couple of this kind already, making films of this seemingly newfangled type—ordinary. Our visual acuity would still be able to distinguish between a 3-D and a non 3-D film, but in the short haul I believe our penchant for this approach to cinematic viewing would not last. It will just become like everything else we see that is out there in the movie world. It did not take long for me to get used to the 3-D effects of Up, Avatar, and Alice in Wonderland. After a while it appeared like I was viewing it normally, but stuck to wearing a pair of odd glasses the theater provided, for when I took it off all I saw was a washed out blurry picture. Also, the extra money spent would not value as much; you would still end up either enjoying the film or not liking it at all, without a single comment from anyone really critiquing the whole 3-D imaging treatment.    

The author before the screening of "Alice in Wonderland"

For us moviegoers to appreciate a good motion picture, it is really not the stunning special effects that they include in movies we’re watching that make it stand out, but it all boils down to the quality of the story and/or its entertainment value. Furthermore, I think that turning all movies into a 3-D spectacle without providing a conventional screening alternative would even lessen its theater audience viewership, as I found out that it was a dizzying, nauseating experience to some. Unless they’re handing out desensitizing agents for the eyes alongside those special viewing glasses at the theater entrance, I could say that it might be a detrimental move as well.  

In the end, I think it would be best if movie companies would stick to traditional 2-D movie-making, and just continued focusing more on coming up with better stories; dazzling realistic special effects; great histrionics and capable thespians, than putting premium on a technology that would eventually be commonplace. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s