Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Star Wars and the 3D kick

   Just a few days after Disney announced that J.J. Abrams has been signed to direct the next "Star Wars" movie, it announced that it will stop work on the 3D versions of "Star Wars" Episodes II and III, and focus on the new film.
     This is a good move for Disney. Altough the novelty of 3D media excited many at first, so far the results are lackluster. Films that release in 3D have to also release in standard format because many people would rather not see it in 3D. Stereoscopic images can strain the eyes give headaches to some, and many simply don't want to want to fork out the extra money.
    3D media is a good concept---it has potential to draw the viewer into the story more completely. However, most films' 3D versions barely add any depth and ultimately aren't that different from the standard format. Filmmakers can't help this because stereoscopic images strain the eyes more at greater depths. If you can't achieve the storytelling benefits from the technology, you should either wait until the technology improves to meet your needs, or develop it yourself. What we really need are hologram films---ones that can really immerse the audience in the story. Art is about making a connection between the artist and the viewer, and sharing something---communicating something. The more completely you can do that, the more successful the art is.


  1. I agree that 3D does not add much to a movie's value. Improving the dialogue or story enhances a movie much more than adding 3D. Plus, it's a lot cheaper to have a writer work more than have a lot of animators, tech crew, etc. film in 3D. "This movie's in 3D. We have to see it!" - No One Ever

  2. I have to concur. I've only seen one or two movies in 3D for the "novelty" of it, and then I was done. Maybe if 3D wasn't more expensive people would get used to it and start to like it, but I don't see that happening.