This writer has nothing to report about Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, but something to say about its process.
A message should go out to the movie-going public in Mobile: Do not see movies that have been post-converted to 3D. It is (most of the time) a lazy practice that sells short that which could otherwise be good 3D.
For those who don’t know, post-conversion is when a movie is shot in 2D, and then the filmmakers decide that they want it to show in 3D, so they go through a lengthy process in post-production involving the separation of layers and such, eventually producing a 3D film. If that satisfies you, then great. Ignore this article.
However, a good portion of moviegoers actually care about the quality of 3D that they’re paying for. The main beef to be had with post-conversion is that it is most of the time (not always) a cash grab. You see, if a film is going to be shown in 3D, there should be a strong creative motivation for it. It should enhance the film in marvelous ways. If this technology will make a film better, then it should NOT be post-converted. It should be SHOT in 3D, with 3D cameras. That’s why they exist. Many people out there are not fans of 3D in general (*cough cough*), but even those people would agree that any 3D film should be shot in 3D.
Whatever the case, 3D is a special effect. George Lucas once said that special effects should be tools for storytelling and that a special effect with no story is worthless. Despite the fact that Lucas himself seems to have recently ignored his own mantra, he was right. There are far too many films in recent years that have used 3D as a gimmick just to sell tickets and make more money. And whatever, it’s a business. But if you’re going to make people pay 3 extra dollars, give them adequate 3D.
A message should go out to the movie-going public in Mobile: Do not see movies that have been post-converted to 3D. It is (most of the time) a lazy practice that sells short that which could otherwise be good 3D.
For those who don’t know, post-conversion is when a movie is shot in 2D, and then the filmmakers decide that they want it to show in 3D, so they go through a lengthy process in post-production involving the separation of layers and such, eventually producing a 3D film. If that satisfies you, then great. Ignore this article.
However, a good portion of moviegoers actually care about the quality of 3D that they’re paying for. The main beef to be had with post-conversion is that it is most of the time (not always) a cash grab. You see, if a film is going to be shown in 3D, there should be a strong creative motivation for it. It should enhance the film in marvelous ways. If this technology will make a film better, then it should NOT be post-converted. It should be SHOT in 3D, with 3D cameras. That’s why they exist. Many people out there are not fans of 3D in general (*cough cough*), but even those people would agree that any 3D film should be shot in 3D.
Now, it should be noted that studios are not all a bunch of money-grabbers. Not all. Shooting in 3D is wickedly expensive, so it can be understood why studios would want to skip that cost. However, even that argument doesn’t seem to hold up, because post-conversion also costs a lot of money AND a 3D movie makes more money because of ticket inflation. So even if the studios don’t pay to shoot in 3D, they still pay to post-convert it. Why not just shoot in 3D? I’m not an accountant for the studios. I cannot know exactly which way is cheaper.
Now, it should be noted that studios are not all a bunch of money-grabbers. Not all. Shooting in 3D is wickedly expensive, so it can be understood why studios would want to skip that cost. However, even that argument doesn’t seem to hold up, because post-conversion also costs a lot of money AND a 3D movie makes more money because of ticket inflation. So even if the studios don’t pay to shoot in 3D, they still pay to post-convert it. Why not just shoot in 3D? I’m not an accountant for the studios. I cannot know exactly which way is cheaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment