With the rise of 3D films becoming increasingly more popular are we forgetting the true essence behind films and instead looking too much into the technology behind them? Raechelle Jackson discusses why she is out of favour with the current ‘trend’ that seems to be the 3D society…
3D films have been evident since the 50s but have never really been picked up upon until the late 80s and 90s guided by the revival of theatres with 3D imagery and the introduction of the IMAX theatre. Harry K Fairall and Robert F Elder were the first real pioneers of 3D imaging – a motion picture that enhances the illusion of depth perception made by recording two perspectives of images and placing them over each other to create the effect of things essentially looking like they do in ‘real life’.
Which is where my first issue predominately lies. If 3 dimensional films involve objects popping out on scream or looking more ‘rounded’ and finer than 2D films then they are becoming more and more lifelike. Without the use of these features that ‘pop out’ to the reader the 3D film just has a more rounded look and draws the audience into something more real. If this is the case, with film now attempting to blur the boundaries of reality and a constructed narrative, where is the line drawn? To have characters to look like they are really in front of you carrying out the actions and dialogue defies the idea of a movie – you are allowed to find yourself attracted and engrossed in the plot but if it is perceived to be more real then where is the point where we are taken to a different place when the setting is just as close to us as real life would make it seem?
One element where 3D movies are seemingly justified are when things come towards you onscreen – characters seemingly ‘popping’ out of the frame and into your face and glass shattering so it feels like you could really be hit by the fragments. This is what 3D films should be about. The sensations that come with the feeling of getting so involved yet being challenged by the fact that the object you see isn’t real and you are only fully aware of this when it flies towards you yet it cannot touch you.
Again 3D film takes two steps forward and one step back when, instead of releasing films just for 3D, they decide that it is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’ and so produce a 2D version to rake in even more profit. This is when the ability to make something stand out as much as it does in 3D is limited by the fact in 2D it will not look as spectacular so these features have to be reigned in and we are left with the 3D effect that looks far less polished and makes characters look like they would in real life rather than taking audiences on a journey of seeing explosions happen and feel as though they are involved in the piece.
Recently the rise of turning classic 2D films, such as Titanic and the Lion King, into 3 dimensional pieces has been on the rise. Feedback from this merely reports that the quality is crisper and clearer but this could be achieved in post-production works rather than the 3D element. People seem to forget the real aim of films. It should be about the narrative, the plot devices, the twists, the turns, the characters and the fact that after all that has happened it is not real life and is not aimed for you to feel as though you have just walked onto set.
I stand firmly by my position that 3 dimensional films are just a corporate Hollywood marketing device aimed to promote different types of films and sell them again – thus making more money and ripping off consumers that only have a pair of cheap 3D glasses to reminisce the pointlessness of the technology they have sat through for 90 minutes.