My latest thoughts on 3D

Earlier this year I did a post on 3D, whether we like it or not it is here to stay. You have three options. Totally ignore it, embrace it fully or be cautious like me.

I have seen many films in 3D, both shot in 3D and post processed. None of the post processed films like Clash Of The Titans did anything for me. In fact I hated it. I am sure it was a better movie in 2D (but still probably not a good one). 3D NEEDS to be shot in certain way, it needs to be edited differently too. Fast cuts hurt your head. Your brain often needs to sync with what is happening. COTT just made my head explode like they do in “Scanners”!

Avatar was interesting. I didn’t really dig the story. I appreciated the effects and the work that went into it, but it still felt a bit like a pop up book rather than 3D.

Since then I have seen a few animated films. Despicable Me was easily the most impressive animated 3D film I saw. I actually loved the 3D. A first for me. I saw Voyage of The Dawn Treader and the 3D added nothing to me, I wish I had seen it in 2D.

But tonight something happened. I saw something that  has made me re-evaluate things, to a degree..I saw Tron Legacy.

Tron was one of my favourite films as a kid and if you haven’t seen it go check it out. One of the very first films to use computer effects in a movie and way ahead of it’s time both visually and conceptually.

The sequel has just come out and I don’t want to give away an spoilers but I have to say it was easily the best 3D movie I have seen. Part of the reason was it was 3D for a reason, it was the first time it did not seem like a gimmick. Every trailer that preceded it did feel like a gimmick. CGI animated film after CGI animated film and there was even 3 trailers for bloody Gulliver’s Travels! Talk about overkill.

The film starts out in 2D and despite the message at the beginning to leave your specs on the whole time I totally disagree. Those glasses are not good. They make things look murky, dull the exposure and make everything look just a bit too dark and nowhere near  as nice. Claudio Miranda’s work in the real world is beautiful. Please take those glasses off the them. Then we jump into the virtual 3D world. It’s a bit of Wizard of Oz moment as when Dorothy landed in Oz, going from B&W to colour. The impact of being there and being in 3D worked so well. Not just that but everything was so well thought through. The shots were held long enough, the 3D did not feel like pop up book. Very little shallow depth of field was used. Lots of deep depth of field which works so much better with 3D. It was simply a stunning movie visually. One of the best I have ever seen. Yes, most of it was done in CGI which of course makes the 3D better as you can tweak it to perfection but this was a vision fully realised by first-time director Joseph Kosinski. It was a triumph. I never thought I would say this but I loved the 3D and am so glad I saw it that way for once. I enjoyed Avatar so much more in 2D on my blu-ray at home! This I only want to see in 3D!

The movie itself was thoroughly enjoyable, I love it. I saw it with someone who had not seen the original and she loved it too. So there you go. 3D can work…but NOT for every bloody film please. There needs to be a reason, but I am realistic and I know that won’t happen. What really bugs me is movie theatres charge you more to see the film in 3D and some even charge you for the glasses. There really is no reason to charge more to see a film in 3D.

So I have made VERY tentative steps into 3D. I know clients are already asking my thoughts on it and I am VERY hesitant.

Currently I have two devices that can capture 3D images and video. I have a cheap and cheerful Fujifilm W3. It is leaps and bounds better than the W1 and it captures great 3D stills and 720p 3D video. It has a wonderful lenticular screen on the back so you can actually view what you have shot in 3D without glasses. It really is pretty good. Sure, the video is a bit ropey, noisy, terrible in low light but in the right conditions it can deliver some pretty nice stuff.


I also have bought the 3D lens for my Gh2, it’s stills only but with a simple hack you  can get it to shoot video, even with my AF101, albeit with a loss of resolution. It’s 12.5mm (25mm full frame equivalent) and is set a F12. Why? Because deep depth of field is needed for 3D to work properly. It’s about 200 quid so not too pricey. I haven’t shot anything with it yet but I am, as soon as my timer remote for my GH2 arrives, going to shoot some 3D timelapse. Now that should be really nice.

I have a Panasonic Viera 3D TV at home. I needed a new TV so I bought one with 3D, why? If I am to experiment and try this out I need a way of seeing what I am doing. So at least I can see the what the 3D looks like with it. It has the net built into it so I can view videos I shoot in 3D uploaded onto youtube which support proper 3D, er properly!

So, do I love 3D now? Nope. I still mostly hate it. I really hate the idea of taking older movies too and post processing them. Please no! It’s a gimmick to make more money for studios and the only good think it has done is get some decent projectors into movie theatres…But Tron Legacy  has given me a 3D film that I love and I didn’t think I would be saying that so soon…I really recommend seeing it. I will be going again soon.

But for me now, the same as when I did my last post. 2D is my love. I am certainly not anti new technology, quite the opposite. We are still at the embryonic stages of 3D and there are so many issues with it, not least the glasses. Things will get better without a doubt, in time. Technology is always improving and soon, we won’t be wearing glasses at all! Now, that is when 3D will start to interest me much more as long as it is used to enhance the film not just make more money. After all if directors like Martin Scorsese are shooting their latest film in 3D there must be something in it. He has such integrity as a filmmaker I am fascinated to see what he will be doing with it.

0

You may also like

60 comments

  1. I agree wholeheartedly. I just finished a short shooting with the Panasonic AG-3DA1, and I think it’s best viewed as a different visual medium. It was a real brain-tickler for me, to try and get out of thinking in 2D (i.e., bokeh/DoF effects) and into 3D (especially convergence and negative parallax.) The things that need to be in 3D also need special care and thought to be shot so.

      1. Short answer: we didn’t. Since most of our outside stuff was “action” oriented (running through the woods) so we shot a 1/250 shutter. Even on a bright and clear day, I was at ƒ5.6 or thereabouts most of the time. But even at 1/48, I could get to ƒ14 and still have a good exposure (though it helps to overexpose a bit, ’cause the screen/glasses combo take away couple of stops.)

        And somewhere (I think in American Cinematographer) I saw a full-page ad with a mattebox rig that had a donut for the 3DA1, but I can’t think of who it was, so we didn’t have a rig to put it in. However, the entire design of the focus ring makes it impossible to put a follow focus on–the ring is sloped, so you can’t mount a gear on it. We had a VariZoom controller for an HVX200 that worked with the focus and iris ring.

  2. YouTube now supports 3D and you can get some affordable stereoscopic shades from eBay for as little as a fiver. That and the GH2’s 3D lens is going to be my tentative step into 3D, and it’s exciting strangely enough…. because 3D is like any other tool… it must be used in the right way on the right project to be successful.

    3D still has a long way to go. We need to drop the shades, and eventually I can see it being electro-psychological. We’ll wear a hat or something and electrodes in it will be able to manipulate our sense of depth by communicating directly with what’s inside our head. No tricking of the eyes with elaborate spectacles.

    Interesting that Tron is both 2D and 3D… that’s a great idea and again, only use a tool when it suits the purpose… Tron’s director understood this and didn’t bow to the studio’s crazy 3D-everything mantra.

    I heard that at the start of the film the audience is instructed to take the glasses off for the 2D bits?

    Those shades are a total pain in the ass.

    However I found the screen on the Fuji 3D camera not much better… not sure if it was W1 or W3 but after using it I felt like removing my eyeballs and washing them under a hot tap.

  3. Glad to hear you liked Tron Legacy in 3D, Philip. The press over here in the states have been ripping it a new one. Based on your thoughts I’ll have to check it out.

    What’s your take on the 3D Viera television? Have you checked any 3D movies with it yet? From what I’ve read it blows away the movie theatre films since the 3D is reproduced at a higher frame rate (60 fps/1920×1080) along with a higher contrast (plasma being the best, Panasonic Viera are typically rated the best contenders).

    Either way I’m hoping 3D takes off this time and doesn’t become another fad. I felt James Cameron did a great job with it, but bringing it home properly could change the way many feel about it in general.

  4. Great post. I watched the movie yesterday. I thought the story had some parallels to star wars that were almost too obvious. Also Clue shouting didnt have the desired effect, I wanted to laugh out loud every-time he got mad.
    Parts of the ending especially the character “Tron” really really bugged me.

    Visually though I was fully satiated.

    U aren’t a fan of 3d, yet you have a 3d tv?

    I am not a fan of 3d either to be honest. I think it has become a marketing
    scheme that has be forced on a lot of movies when it shouldn’t be. There will not be many movies able to do 3d as well as tron anyway for obvious reasons. So this is a few and far between sort of situation in my opinion.

  5. I took my glasses off when I realized it wasn’t in 3D. I agree with you about how the 3D was used in “the Grid”, it was an actual reason to use 3D.

    The fighting and light bike scenes were mesmerizing, However, I felt the story was lacking. I paid 15 bucks to see the film, So I kept the glasses! – http://twitpic.com/3gz9bm

  6. I absolutely agree! I’ve seen it yesterday evening at the Southbank IMAX and I loved it! I think that the combination of the giant screen and a well made 3D is really hard to beat (and i found the sound amazing, too!). I really loved the transition between the 2D and the 3D world as well, the only thing that still bothers me are my eyes getting very tired after a while, does that happen to you as well?? Nonetheless, definitely the best 3D movie so far!
    A very Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones Phil!

  7. I think 3D is great for animated features, and for that reason alone, I think it will be around for a while. Personally, I find it distracting for regular narrative films, and would much rather see a film in 2D. I have a suspicion that the studios use the 3D thing to smokescreen some of their weaker releases..

  8. Got to say I totally agree and feel the same way about all your comments Philip, with one exception… I totally abhor Post-Processed 3D, but there is one film where it works and not only looks beautiful but enhances the viewing pleasure and that’s the conversion of Nightmare Before Christmas. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you give it a try!

    And all bells and whistles are no excuse for not having a good story in the first place!

  9. 3D is currently and for the forseable future a flop. Why? Well for one I did go see Tron in 3D, and Tron was AMAZING, the 3D on the other hand was utter mush. The parts I could actually see, the 3D was done really well, very sublte and not in your face, but even then I could SEE the 3D. What I mean by seeing 3D is that I saw 2 images not 1. It was even worse in the fight scenes, as I couldn’t even see what was going on. It was like watching a movie shot interlaced, with no deinterlacing. And beyond this I had to wear the clunky glasses ON TOP of my other glasses, which cause them to keep falling off. Overall it was a horrible experience.

    On the other hand my brother didn’t have any of these issues, but he isn’t a movie freak like I am. 😉

    The thing is the experience differs SO much between people, that it really shouldn’t be used. For an artistic film, sure, but for a film where you are trying to send a message, and inconsistent look between every viewer is the last thing you want.

  10. So, it’s HOW we shot with it. Yes, HOW we do with it.

    Good 3D use will be an added value,
    but ‘mis-use’ 3D will be a disaster and confusing your audiences.

    Several times ago, perhaps half of year ago, I saw one 3DTV demo (perhaps Samsung) that can post-process 2D source movies into 3D automatically.
    Result? There are several 3D ‘jumps’ in some continuous shots (‘change focus’ from FG to BG), and ‘ghost’ where the object in front, that should be aligned in both Left and Right eye, appear as ‘ghost’ in one of eyes.

    I also saw “The Last Airbender”
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Airbender),not a very good movie actually.
    Anyway, this movie was also advertised as ‘3D’, and I thought after saw them, there are some moving shots made ‘forced’ for 3D uses.

    “Fast cuts hurt your head.”
    Yeah, because we cannot JUMP to many locations quickly!. 😀

    I haven’t going into 3D right now, but what I thought right now with them is:
    “Do I have to keep my camera moving during shooting?”

  11. I concur with this – I do *not* enjoy 3D, I avoid watching a film in 3D whenever possible, it always feels off to me… as if I’m supposed to cut a film slack and just appreciate the out-of-place post 3D effects.

    I didn’t enjoy it in Avatar, I didn’t really enjoy anything in Avatar – that was not a film I had fun watching… but!, TRON was very different. The 3D worked great – it wasn’t distracting and didn’t feel out-of-place. I actually had a really good time watching TRON and I was happy I had to watch it in 3D.

  12. I read somewhere in a article about 3D, (Think it was in the swedish broadcast/sound/light magaizin “Monitor”.) that about 20% of the population can’t even watch 3D on cinema or tv. Some people are blind on one eye or has other sight defects and problem that make them unable to watch 3D. To lose 20% viewers just becouse they can’t watch 3D is to many for me as a cameraman/producer. For me it is the content in the program/movie that is the important. Not if it is shot in 3D or not. I want everyone to be able to see the story I shoot or the programs that my TV-station transmit.

    So I don’t think it is something for TV or every movie, unless all the 3D tech is in side the TV or movie screen so you don’t need to have the 3D glasses on.

    3D is cool effect, but leve it to enhance some movies but not all. And keep it away from the normal TV-broadcast.

  13. I totally agree. Tron blew us away! Anyone who hasn’t seen this movie and enjoys film, do yourself a favor. Jeff Bridges as a type of deity is simply awesome.

    And I also took our glasses off at the beginning and end, since it felt silly having them on for the 2D work.

  14. Philip,

    As i understand it the interoccular distance on the 3D lens is very low, less than that of our eyes meaning it is not going to give as much depth to your scene nor volume to your objects. Even shooting at the same IO distance as our eyes a landscape will look quite flat more than 10 meters out or so (not the exact distance by any means).

    I when you say you are planning to test 3D for yourself with a timelapse I am assuming you mean a landscape or some other object far away from the camera. Why not choose something within the depth budget afforded by the IO of the panasonic lens (if you haven’t already)? Just want to give 3D its fair shake.

  15. Excellent points.
    I saw some scenes from Megamind, and that was when I first realized that 3-D could actually look, well….good.
    I saw Tron last night at Imax in 3D….it was great, I agree with you. The only other movie that has really used 3D to support its story before was Spy Kids 3D.
    But something interesting to note was the trailers before the film began. There was an animated film with some god-awful 3D (Mars Needs Moms), and then another trailer began for an Imax documentary with some very very nice 3D. As the technology improves, I’m sure people will begin to take more interest in it from a less gimmicky point of view. The real challenge is to make it look GOOD.
    For heavens sake, why would you ruin your film with some really nasty 3D when you could just release in 2D!! Doesn’t make sense at all!

    There was a very interesting article with Scorsese on 3D. I’m not sure if you’ve read it: http://www.today3d.com/2010/11/martin-scorsese-3d-is-liberating-every.html

  16. As popular as 3d is, it still isn’t what it should or could be. Clients ask me all the time about 3d in my industry and i continuously tell them that i will not partake until technology changes. Yet it seems that is the latest and greatest according to the ignorant and the ignorant are becoming our clients both high-end and the average joe job. I am hoping the general consumer/ viewer will get over the hype of 3d in its current state. Not only is acquisition, editing, and delivery umpteen times more complicated and vastly more expensive, if it is not done right it is actually painful. Just like tv manufacturers pushing the high hertz crap that turns great cinema art into home movie like trash, until we as professionals can have the tools to make projects easy as they are now and deliver a vastly different experience through 3d I suspect it will pass, again.

  17. I checked some 3D Tvs at Future shop just to see how good they look, i have to tell you that i was feeling uncomfortable after few mins but certainly the image with the third dimension appeared more interesting than conventional 2D TVs.

    Hopefully soon we will have TVs that does not require special glasses might be more pleasant to watch.

    Apple Inc has patented a technology that does not require wearing glasses and Toshiba is releasing TVs in Japan soon.

    http://bit.ly/dTJJqm

  18. Philip – I am very disappointed in your thoughts on 3D, though I appreciate your enthusiasm for TRON: LEGACY. It is indeed an excellent movie and a great display of 3D.

    But modern 3D is NOT a gimmick if used correctly in the right genres. Can it be a gimmick? Sure! Just like sound is used as a gimmick in horror (ever jump at a simple cat jumping into frame because they blast the audience with a million decibels? Objects flying at you in 3D is the same idea. Stereoscopic 3D usage in a drama (HUGO CABRET, Martin Scorsese), sci-fi (TRON: LEGACY), documentary (CAVES OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS, Werner Herzog), fantasy (THE HOBBIT, Peter Jackson) are most assuredly NOT gimmicky Philip.

    I am not sure why you want to push 3D in that direction. It is so much more as you just witnessed with TRON.

    I agree with your assessment of post production 3D conversion – ESPECIALLY if the movie was not shot with conversion in mind. The technology is improving every month it seems though – soon it will be a valid option for first run features.

    Drop me a line at some point if you wish. I know of an interesting stereoscopic 3D project that involves two hacked GH1’s in stereo configuration and the results are superb.

    Best,
    -jim

    1. When I say it is being used as a gimmick i mean that all these films being released in 3d are not done to make the movies better it’s done to make more money. To get more people to watch them, that is a gimmick. It add not artistic or enhancement to the majority of what I have seen. Quite the opposite

      1. Exactly! And I work in S3D so I at least have some credibility on the subject. When you’ve got companies like Legacy 3D out there that can actually do solid 2D-3D conversion for $100,000 a minute, an extra $10 million to turn a tentpole into 3D is a no brainer from a cost-benefit standpoint.
        But, it hurts the industry in the long run…then again, so does the current lack of content.
        Personally, I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to the future of S3D, but I do know that there are ways it can be used to enhance the storytelling experience and people are only beginning to discover some of the more promising applications (and the surprising thing is it’s not about things popping out of the screen or really great special effects). It’s all about creating an immersive experience and opening a window into another world.
        All in all, it has a lot of growing up to do and anybody that thought the transition to HD was a little wild west should spend a few days dealing with the proprietary nonsense plaguing the 3DTV industry (as well as the theaters), but the future applications are there and as soon as the content providers realize that you can’t apply a 2D mindset to a 3D program, that’s when the value of S3D will hopefully become obvious.

  19. a few years ago i was in a local 10hour film competition and used an effect called the “pulfrich effect” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect) to create the illusion of 3d. you still have to have glasses but they were really cheap, easy to get, the effect was extremely easy to create and it had a huge impact on the audience. just thought i’d share in case someone was thinking about doing 3d cheap and on a small scale:)

  20. Hi Philip,

    Great read. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    I believe Tron Legacy’s 3D worked for a simple reason – as far as I’ve understood it by reading your post (I haven’t seen it), the 3D aspect is part of the storyline, not a technical gimmic.

    During IBC 2010 back in September I saw Avatar in 3D in the best quality resolution possible and I found it only interesting in certain parts of the movie.

    Did you know that 3D rigs can be a very interesting for us DSLR shooters to help solve problems we face on a daily basis? By combining either simultaneous takes from two cameras you can expose for both the background and the foreground in a high contrast lighting situation and then combine the two in post.

    Feel free to read my article on HDR Video on ReelSEO: http://www.reelseo.com/hdr-video-3d/ or watch some examples on my HDR Video group on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/groups/hdrvideo

  21. The problem with 3D is that unless you have perfect binocular vision it just does not work very well. A small proportion of the population can’t see the effect at all and many more don’t see it as intended. That’s why there are such polarised (no pun intended!) views of 3D – we’re not all seeing the same thing.

    When you add in the inconvenience of the glasses it’s just not viable for more than the occasional animated movie IMHO.

    Unless the technology improves – gets rid of the specs, and allows users to tweak the image to their individual vision it’s always going to be a small niche.

  22. Hi Philip, glad to read you liked Tron Legacy! I saw it yesterday and thought it was brilliant. It really captured the essence of the original, and the 3D, yes, it definitely worked well. As I was saying to my wife earlier, they kept it subtle in a way that doesn’t distract from what’s happening in the movie itself. I think I might go and see it again actually!

    Check Vimeo for a few 7D 3D movies. I remember seeing a few a while back, timelapses too. The guy had used Cineform Neo 3D to put them together.

  23. So far the only movie I’ve seen which really uses 3D effectively is JackAss 3D. Every other 3D film I’ve seen so far would have been better off in 2D, and I love that the next Batman film will be 2D.

  24. 2010 = stereoscopic 3D, forced marketing due to sucess of Avatar
    2011 = still stereoscopic 3D
    2012 = real 3D enters the high-end market, +3k euro TV’s

    year after that, slowly merging into a new standard. Stereoscopic 3D is not here to stay, it’s a passing tech which will merge into something really good, luckily the avarage consumer don’t give a damn for now anyway so hopefully there won’t be a boomerang effect on the market with dissapointed consumers. I mean really, the folks that buy 3D TV’s today are the peeps like us, it took long enough just to get people to buy flat TV’s.

  25. hi! …my first reply here : )….

    In my opinion, one of the biggest problem in 3d films are the boundaries!
    i mean, you always see that you’re looking in to something with limits ( the screen!),in to a box! and that is one of things that makes everything unreal despite the 3d is making big steps ahead!

    when the screens in the cinema will be wide as the field of view ( 180 degrees) , you will be wrapped by 3d,and that will simulate and boost up the hole thing….

  26. I was a huge fan of Tron as a kid – we owned the VHS and watched it many, many times! So, I was very excited (and somewhat surprised) to learn that a sequel was in the works. Last night a friend got me a pass to the IMAX friends and family screening of the film and it was quite spectacular – the overall look of the film, and the 3D specifically, was incredible. I think, though, that one of the pitfalls of 3D is that it is very dependent on the quality of projection. I was fortunate to be able to see the film under ideal conditions – in a flagship IMAX theater – but most people are not so lucky. 3D is definitely a gimmick, but one that is probably here to stay.

  27. Thelma Schoonmaker on Scorsese:
    http://www.slashfilm.com/martin-scorseses-3d-will-be-in-your-face/
    “Scorsese is in love with [3D]. He looked at Avatar and Alice [in Wonderland] and Scorsese didn’t feel that the 3D he saw was as interesting as in the old ones like Dial M for Murder and House of Wax. He’s decided he wants to be stronger with 3D to make it jump out at you. He’s going to go a little bit further with it.”

    I didn’t think there was any fundamental difference between today’s version of 3D and the 3D movies dating back to the 70s when we teens watching 3D exploitation flicks at the drive-in, drinking beer and ducking whenever an actor turned to the camera with a pitchfork stuck in his chest. 3D is really fun! Better with girls!

    But this is exploitation technology. It’s point is making money. Today it’s probably relevant to getting funding. I’ve only seen the posters for Scorsese’s 3D pick. Maybe it’s great. Maybe today people like Scorsese choose projects that suit 3D because everybody wants to invest in 3D. Maybe in 5 years we’ll get tired of movies that suit 3D. There will be very few Avatars. Eventually no one will get funding.

    But there is so much more to be excited about. HDR cinema is cool (as mentioned above). HDSLRs are cooler than 3D. (At the very moment cinema is democratized, Hollywood switches to 3D.) The significance of The Third & Seventh cannot be underestimated. And Modern Times by BC2010. ( http://vimeo.com/17631561 ).

    3D is a ridiculous con.

    Here’s what would be better: blend games and cinema. Just allow the viewer enough camera control to get the immersive experience – via head-mounted display – let’s say virtual reality glasses just to keep it like 3D – but not enough control for the movie to come crashing down and turn into a game. It’s not interactive, it’s immersive. It just puts you in the room with the goodfellas around the table in Scorsese’s mum’s kitchen, after they ‘killed the deer’. (You don’t get to choose what they eat. )

    This is way better than 1950s 3D-in-2D illusionism. It’s 1980s virtual reality! In the future, when the web and everything is virtual reality, there will be good old fashioned cinema, but there won’t be 3D, for obvious reasons.

  28. Hi Philip, I don’t know if this has been said before but if you follow a few basic 3D rules it’s really easy to produce stunning 3D footage using DSLRs. I made a short 3D film for The Gadget Show earlier in the year using a pair of 550Ds and a homemade mount. Now a lot of people will tell you it’s impossible to get good result without using expensive specialist camera kit, this isn’t true however one thing I would recommend is getting hold of an active 3D system like the one made by NVidia to watch your 3D films on, this works so much better than the passive 3D that you see at the cinema and the workflows a doddle.

  29. I’m going to have to disagree with a lot of the above. I thought visually the film looked great – I thought the 3D was fairly poor, as I did with Despicable Me also. I don’t see the point of ‘Subtle 3D’ – it’s almost pointless in a way and this is what I found with Tron – the slight benefit counteracts the distraction of the glasses and the dullness of the picture.

    I thought the 3D in Avatar was much better with the diving and ‘dandelion seeds’ – felt more engulfed with it as if I was there (helped watching it on IMAX too, as I also did with Tron).

    I think there’s a place for 3D but I’m losing love with it after seeing numerous films turned into 3D in post – Toy Story 3D being a great example of a film where the 3D was so minimal and pointless I felt like asking for the £2 extra it cost back.

    3D is like HD TV for me – Emperors new clothes and just a way to get you to spend more on something you don’t need. Holographic TV/Cinema on the other hand . . . .

  30. even though this is not a forum for film buffs I’ll post here briefly a few thoughts on why tron legacy is a bad hollywood film
    here is why

    what you have is
    an untalented director
    a kitsch aesthetic mentality which among other things includes latex uniforms white heels and badly copied scenes from 2001
    infinitely boring choreography and movement a la matrix style
    bad performances
    plus a synthetically spooky bridges which looks and sounds like an unfinished version from a polar express test scene

    what you get is
    an irresistibly uninspired movie costing more than 200 million $

    tron legacy shares nothing with the beautifully pristine architecture of the original film and its stylistic clarity. tron (1982) for those who still remember it was a landmark work for the sci fi genre despite an uninteresting script from disney. the film’s success had to do mainly with lisberger’s choices at how he constructed and envisioned his powerfully concrete images. a suberbly subtle mix between anachronistic silent film and ultra modern futuristc design.

    and one last thing regarding the 3D issue
    it is pretty uninteresting
    the reason is simple
    colors and light tonalities are muffled and limited on a gray and black and white scale thus leaving very little room for a more colorful pallete which would make things pop out more. the expected feast for the eyes does not live up to its full potential and it does not enhance the so called three dimensionality.
    the only scenes that look and feel more 3D are those where the red and orange color tonalities contrast with the deep black and white undertones of the surroundings. but these scenes are unfortunatley very few to save the ill fated project

Leave a Reply