Serious Slice: Ben and Chris Discuss 3D

Chris: Do you think 3D cinema is the first step on the road to total immersion cinema? And would this kill off camera techniques which have shaped filmmaking up to this point. Mise en scene, close ups, panning etc.  I suppose we need to define total immersion cinema, I really mean Virtual Reality.

Ben: Personally, I find 3D to be helpful in experiencing a films depth. An example of this would be with Avatar or How to Train your Dragon. However, I find that it's not necessarily camera angles that are sacrifices in fact I find they are complimented by 3D it's story I think is jeopardised. Look at Avatar, the plot was unoriginal.

Chris: Agree with that point. 3D films seem to be all style and little content.

Ben: Being totally immersed in cinema can only help the viewer be exposed to the world the creators want them to be involved in.  They can do both I suppose, sometimes.

Chris: Even Avatar, though wonderfully realised did have a kind of 'been there seen that' feel to it. Point is though, that if it ever got to the point where we were totally immersed in cinema through VR technology we would be watching films in first person and therefore have total control of our viewing angle. Hence stopping a director from using camera angles as an artistic tool.

Ben: Is Hollywood only embracing 3D to get extra money out of people? This layering techinque they use isn't exactly helping 3D. So is 3D not doing that? The Director always has control over what we see. He still has tools of lighting, of where the actors are placed.

Chris: I'm talking years in the future. I'm just a dreamer but I ain't the only one

Ben: I don't think total immersion is really a bad idea. As seen with 3D, I don't think it'll be replacing how all movies will be made. Maybe that's our problem now? We have new technology so we assume everything should be embracing it.

Chris: It would be amusing though to see everyone in a cinema wearing clunky VR helmets like a massive audition for a 3rd member of daft punk.

Ben: I'd pay to wear one. Only if I could take it home with me

Chris: And plug it into your telly.

Ben: I'd just use it for cosplay. 

Chris: I'd use it for Babestation.

Ben: I'd put it on my girlfriends head and pretend she's a cyborg. Anyway I think the importance of new technology such as 3D and VR is to utilise it for its best purpose rather than throwing it at everything they can think to use it with. Don't you have to pay for Babestation?

Chris: One word 'Freeview'.  Exactly, it's such a gimmick that film companies just lob '3D' at the end of their film's title and hope it will sell. It's just a matter of time before Pride and Prejudice 3D.

Ben: So do we agree 3D is being used more as a gimmick? If so does it really have a future after the novelty has worn off?

Chris: I think the novelty's already worn off. People are starting to realise that the extra 2 quid just ain’t worth it.

Ben: True. Even films presented and made for 3D I feel aren't giving me the impact they suppose to be giving me.

Chris: Last three films I've seen have all had 3D versions but I chose the traditional format and saved myself a couple of squid.

Ben: Surely it can be used for something though? It is good technology.

Chris: I liked Journey to the Centre of the Earth in 3D as it was pre-Avatar and felt quite fresh and new.

Ben: What about Werner Herzog's documentary about cave paintings in 3D?

Chris: I think post Avatar 3D technology seems a bit stale. So I blame Avatar personally.
Then again I blame Avatar for a lot of things.

Ben: But technically Avatar did start it. It was James Cameron’s technology after all.

Chris: If it's raining outside, blame Avatar.

Ben: If United lose, blame Avatar. The apocalypse? Avatar.

Chris: The blame Avatar movement starts here.

Ben: Spread the word. So what are our conclusions?

Chris: Avatar sucks.

Ben: And 3D needs to be utilised if it's going to survive. The gimmicks should go too.

Chris: I think that James Cameron set a benchmark too high. All other 3D films seem paltry in comparison.

Ben: Before his time? But Avatar was a shit film if you ignore the effects.

Chris: Not before his time, just the amount of time and effort and money that went into it. No other film could be made this way.

Ben: Maybe he set the bar too high with effects alone.

Chris: Definitely.

Ben: But saying that, in my opinion nothng has come to close to Terminator 2 graphics. They still look real to me.  And at the same time they weren't gimmicky so when you compare them you can say 3D is a greater risk than CGI.

Chris: Yeah I think the early 90s was the best era for special effects

Ben: Saying that, CGI has only really made leaps of improvement in the past 10 years. Maybe we should give 3D a chance?

Chris: The problem comes when film producers become too reliant on the technology and of course forget about the core components of a film, its script, acting etc.

Ben: Not really they just go with trends. Especially when the film itself is just another generic blockbuster.

Chris: Yeah what sells is the most important thing. If people keep paying that extra 2 quid for 3D films, they will keep getting made in their hundreds.

Ben: Your final words please Chris. Time to sum this up

Chris: Ok. 3D cinema is no doubt wonderful technology but it needs to be constantly innovated and updated or it runs the risk of becoming a stale gimmick just added to a film for the sheer hell of it because it's the 'in thing'.  If this does lead to a totally immersive experience at the cinema, I hope that the importance of good camera technique isn't lost. The unseen performer which has shaped all the classic films of the last century deserves its dues and I don't want to see it fall on its sword for the sake of new technology.

Ben: Mine are that Hollywood has been swept with the trend. As you have said there's a time and a place for 3D and it shouldn't be used just because it's there. It's too expensive as it is and frankly it just discourages me from going to the cinema. We don't need 3D to make a good film, so that should be recognised.

The future is unwritten, and the development of 3D is only a stepping stone into a new era of technology. However, I can't say I'm convinced with what I've seen so far. 

Chris: It may get to a point where a film is promoted for being 2D when 3D films becomes the norm. And we'll be in our seventies going 'I remember when all films were like this'.

And then the robots will bring our medication

Ben:  I'd love a robot. Let's hope I'm proven wrong and someone develops 3D to an extent that it does become fully immersive and I can eat my hat.

Chris: Eat my hat 3D

Ben: For all the angles you'd want to see a man eat his hat. 

Ben: This has been MovieCake's Serious Slice: 3D or not 3D. I've been Ben Doran.

Chris: I've been Chris Curry. Remember to take your medication kids, or the robots will come for you.