Something has been on my mind lately and clearly this is an area of debate that is close to the heart of RED, given the recent purchases by 3D zealots Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson.
As many of you will probably have noticed looking at the recent box office numbers from the last few weeks, audiences are putting the hurt on 3D releases and instead going to 2D presentations. Priest, Thor and Pirates 4 all suffered and missed their projected opening numbers, in some cases by a long shot.
Various factors play into this, high ticket prices to pay for expensive productions like Pirates ($250 mil), brightness issues, head aches, children not wanting to wear the glasses, etc. the list goes on.
There have been many arguments for and against 3D, I for one hate 3D, mainly because I get head aches about 1 hour into any 3D film. Why? Could it be 100,000+ years of evolution that makes my eyes work the way they do? Probably. There is serious neural-optic science at work here that the scientific community is just beginning to understand and the thought of a guy like Cameron having it all figured out is a hilarious joke to me .
I for one think Cameron is 100% wrong when he says "All films can benefit from 3D." I'm also dismayed that a film like The Hobbit is being shot in 3D, at 48 fps. Time, and time again it has been proven that the content of the film, the story, the characters far out weighs the technicalities of the film when trying to get butts in seats at the theatre. Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister are churning out incredible 2D movies shot on film and grossing more than any other team in Hollywood so how can anyone even begin to speculate that a Chris Nolan film would benefit from 3D or 48fps. Clearly he's doing just fine using the artistic voice he's already got.
I can't imagine no 2D option in theatres and I can't imagine no motion blur. I think if Cameron and others want to make their films in 3D they can go ahead, I could care less. But I really want them to stop telling us, and the studio heads how the rest of us should do it.
Film making is an artistic expression and all directors and cinematographers should be able to choose their brushes to express that voice without the influence of producers who think they understand what the audience wants.
Remember, all these cameras, systems and technology are all just tools that we can use to express ourselves as artists and no artist has the right to tell another artist how to do things. Ever.
The jury is no longer out. We [the audience] don't want everything to be in 3D. Having the option is fine but don't force it on us and don't tell us how we should paint our pictures. Can you imagine Monet telling Van Gogh how to paint? Can you imagine Beethoven telling Mozart how he should be playing piano?
I would also like to remind everyone to COMPLAIN if there is something wrong with the presentation of a film in theatres. AMC has recently been leaving 3D lenses on their projectors for 2D films and all the various other digital glitches and sound issues I've experienced recently seem to go unchecked and no one complains. I saw a digital presentation of Hanna recently in Toronto that looked like sh*t, the brightness was way too low, Alwin Kuchler would have flipped out. Get your money back like I did that night, it's the only way to wake these corporations up and get them to sort these things out.