The 'not about games' blog.

Here it is!

The fabled none gaming blog!

It sucks too because I had a good topic for games, specifically the roll of the internet troll and innova- NO! bad Alex.  That's a complaint for another time.

SO!

Films.

Where to start?

Oh god!?  Where to start!?

...

OK, I have something.

*ahem*

So, 3D, that wonderful little technology that has come and gone from cinema screens since way back in the 80s. Unlike the 80s however there is this very large argument among the film elitist, the pretentious, the open-minded and the 'who-gives-a-crap' audiences around the world.  And while I'm partial to agree with the 'who-gives-a-crap' audience it also means I sympathise with the same brain dead filmtards that thought Skyline was good.

Which it wasn't.

So I guess this means I'm open minded/pretentious.  Nothing new there then.  There are several reasons I'm sat on the fence.  Therefore, I am going to list the Pros and Cons of 3D, and whichever list wins will decide which side of the fence I fall off of after getting hideously pissed and thinking I'm Superman.  And with that, We'll start with the Cons!

Every film that stamps 3D on the title immediately shits on the proposed feel and tone of the film.  For example, Seth Rogan was insistent that the Green Hornet would be just as personal and involving as it was funny.  Then he stamped 3D on the end of the title and suddenly it looked as if his 'personal and involving' was trying to lure in the kids.  Which, even written down, doesn't sound right.


But 3D does immerse you in the world.  When I saw Beowulf, How to Train Your Dragon, Avatar and Toy Story in three dimensions, I became entirely unaware of the fact I was wearing ridiculous head gear.  It fleshed out the figures in the most aesthetic sense, and it also allowed for some more innovative film-making techniques.  One example is, and I can't believe I'm using this, Avatar!  Yes, James Cameron filmed a perspective shot inside a moving helicopter.  The use of 3D made it feel like you were genuinely inside the helicopter with the others, which was incredible.


However, 3D has this horrible habit of involving the 'who-gives-a-shit' audience, the awful audience whose attention can be bought with a lollipop and a firework display, preferably indoors.  And worse yet, there's a lot of the bastards.  And because of this increased sale revenue for anything with 3D stamped on the end, every studio and their granny wants any film with a budget to use 3D.  Worse still, you get shit, money crazed directors like Paul W.S Anderson of Resident Evil fame making MORE RESIDENT EVIL FILMS.  If you want to know why that's so bad, go watch a Resident Evil film.  Or to save you from wasting two hours of your life and contemplating suicide, go watch a trailer on You tube.


Regardless of opinion, this recent influx of 3D is a major game changer, something that hasn't occurred until the last major tech upgrade.  And lets be honest, when those happen the audience very rarely notice.  3D is a genuine aesthetic upgrade where even the naive, such as myself, can blatantly see a difference.  I'm not saying 3D should be in every film, but should a director want to use 3D on his big budget film because he thinks it will enhance it.  He should not be denied.


And that's the problem isn't it.  Because most of the good film makers out there don't see 3D as anything else but a gimmick.  The directors that adore the prospect of 3D just want more cash so they can buy their new Rolls Royce and the 3 prostitutes that go with it; I'm looking at you Spielberg and Lucas.  So long as the good directors don't see the potential and the bad directors see the cash, every 3D film WILL be gimmicky, and therefore inherently awful.


You're just a pessimistic arsehole


Least I'm not a deluded prick


Yeah, well.  Fuck yo-


So there you have it, the only Pros and Cons that I could muster up in this very brief, and concerning, argument to myself.  And I'll tell you what, I'm still on the fence.


Any of you now winging that there are obviously 3 cons there, so I should therefore be pretentious and stop being so pedantic!


So here is why, I see the potential of 3D.  I see that with the appropriate film techniques, love, care and resolve, 3D can be something more than a 'OOH Axe in your face' experience.  3D, done right, can involve an audience in a way no 2D film has.  The problem of course is that so long as directors think all it is good for is a 'OOOH Axe in your face' experience, nothing is going to change.  No heads will turn.  And those people who once made the film industry what it is, will just cause an unnecessary stagnation in development.


And that's another reason why George Lucas sucks.