Hustler, an adult film maker has announced his new feature film ‘This Ain’t Avatar XXX’. This movie will be the first 3D porn movie. Much exciting as it might sound, it only adds to the growing number of movies being released in 3D. I find it really difficult to understand this sudden fixation with making movies in 3D
Experts believe that the technology of viewing 3D is not set to improve for another 8-10 years. It means that we have to bear with the glasses till then. What is the fun in wearing a pair of polarized spectacles all throughout a movie? Some might get away with the Ray Charles look, but if you have the misfortune of having a small face like mine, they keep slipping off. I had a bad experience when watching Clash of the Titans in 3D. For one, it was not exactly a movie worth spending 300 bucks for. Secondly it was a movie converted into 3D during post-production which made it even worse. This is not the same at all when it comes to the actual 3D experience. The difference is not only in the visuals but in the total 3D experience. A movie which is shot in 3D will give a more immersive experience. Whilst a movie converted in post-production will not have the same effect, robbing the audience of the real experience. Thus in many of the scenes in Clash of the Titans, the characters on screen looked like pieces of cardboard and the background looked blurred.
Experts though are optimistic about auto-stereoscopic technology, i.e. watching 3D without glasses. They say it is the future of how we will view all kinds of media. 3D TV have entered the market with Sony and LG launching their products in the US and European markets. These products though are at a nascent stage and still a far dream for us Indians. In such a case my question is why not wait till the technology becomes more common? Why not till then concentrate more on the substance of the movie like the story and the background score, instead of just concentrating on the visuals. It seems that releasing a movie in 3D has become a way for the film studios to earn extra profits by charging the theatre going audiences a premium.
This becomes evident when you see the sheer number of movies being released in 3D. According to Imdb.com, Avatar's success brought in a lot of 3D titles, an estimate of 60 in all between 2009 and the present day. In fact the trade group International 3D Society say that since Avatar was released, 33 percent of box office earnings are from 3D movies. There are about 43 films being released in 3D between now and the end of 2011. Of this most of them have been converted to 3D in post-production.
Though it is good to see some really good movies about to be released, it brings us to the question. Are 3D films really worth the hype the film-makers are creating? And lastly do we really need to pay over 300 bucks to go see a movie wearing spectacles?
Experts believe that the technology of viewing 3D is not set to improve for another 8-10 years. It means that we have to bear with the glasses till then. What is the fun in wearing a pair of polarized spectacles all throughout a movie? Some might get away with the Ray Charles look, but if you have the misfortune of having a small face like mine, they keep slipping off. I had a bad experience when watching Clash of the Titans in 3D. For one, it was not exactly a movie worth spending 300 bucks for. Secondly it was a movie converted into 3D during post-production which made it even worse. This is not the same at all when it comes to the actual 3D experience. The difference is not only in the visuals but in the total 3D experience. A movie which is shot in 3D will give a more immersive experience. Whilst a movie converted in post-production will not have the same effect, robbing the audience of the real experience. Thus in many of the scenes in Clash of the Titans, the characters on screen looked like pieces of cardboard and the background looked blurred.
Experts though are optimistic about auto-stereoscopic technology, i.e. watching 3D without glasses. They say it is the future of how we will view all kinds of media. 3D TV have entered the market with Sony and LG launching their products in the US and European markets. These products though are at a nascent stage and still a far dream for us Indians. In such a case my question is why not wait till the technology becomes more common? Why not till then concentrate more on the substance of the movie like the story and the background score, instead of just concentrating on the visuals. It seems that releasing a movie in 3D has become a way for the film studios to earn extra profits by charging the theatre going audiences a premium.
The movie that set the current trend |
Though it is good to see some really good movies about to be released, it brings us to the question. Are 3D films really worth the hype the film-makers are creating? And lastly do we really need to pay over 300 bucks to go see a movie wearing spectacles?