As it happens, I missed the press preview for "Fly Me to the Moon." It was a stupid misunderstanding, too boring to describe. My fault. I admit I was not inconsolable. After "Space Chimps," I had launched enough animated creatures to the Moon without starting on the insect kingdom. But even more to the point, "Fly Me to the Moon" was in 3-D, and I could all too easily imagine being "startled" by flies buzzing, ohmigod! straight at me!
Faithful readers will know about my disenchantment with 3-D. My dad took me to see the first 3-D movie, Arch Oboler's "Bwana Devil," in 1952. Lots of spears thrown at the audience. Since then I have been attacked by arrows, fists, eels, human livers, and naked legs. I have seen one 3-D process that works, the IMAX process that uses $200 wrap-around glasses with built-in stereo. Apparently that process has been shelved, and we are back to disposable stereoscopic lenses, essentially the same method used in 1952.
There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.
There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground.
In common with most species, we have excellent perception of movement. The first rudimentary "eyes" evolved to sense the difference between light (the source of energy) and darkness (its absence). Very slowly those early cells developed an ability to sense motion. The notion that eyes had to be an example of "intelligent design" is flawed because it cannot imagine an eye evolving toward what it cannot conceive. But sight has evolved independently dozens of times on this planet, growing more complex not because it what it was evolving into, but because of what it was evolving away from: less perception of light and movement. Those few creatures who because of chance mutation gained an advantage were of course more likely to survive.
Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion, for the excellent reason that anything that moved might want to eat them. Movement perceived against a static background is dominant, a principle all filmmakers know. But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.
There were a lot of perceptive comments about my recent blog entry, "The Effect of Effects." The consensus seems to be that, in most cases, not all, those effects are best that don't seem obvious. The contrast was drawn between the cartoon-like movements in the first "Spider-Man" and the far superior integration of the effects in "Spider-Man 2" and "The Dark Knight." Even obvious effects can be made convincing; witness the readers who became emotionally involved in the final battle between the iron machines in "Iron Man." Of course you knew they were effects. But the staging and situation had been so carefully prepared that in a way you believed in the two creatures, and cared about what happened.
In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it.
Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.
* * *
Postscript. I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.
-30-
I am far from being a 3D fan myself, I find it gimmicky and lame, and that it ruins my cinematic experience every single time I see a film featuring the overrated technology.
Have you seen the Real-D process? It shows in 48fps.
If you haven't already you should also check out this interview with James Cameron. It sold me quite a bit (though, admittedly, Cameron has something to sell).
Hooray! I'm glad that someone with your stature is speaking out about 3D vs. 2D films. When I read about people like Jim Cameron, David Katzenberg, and George Lucas talking about making all of their future features in 3D only, I'm saddened. I have a vision defect that prevents me from enjoying any 3D system of projection, but I can enjoy 2D films just fine. I hope after all the techo-trend chasers go flying headlong into this "new medium" a few good filmmakers will still be around to make pictures for people like me. Or maybe I'll just have to make them myself!
I'm curious what you thought of the U2 3D movie? I found that to be the first compelling use of 3D I had ever seen. I don't know if it was a different process or if it was just a different method that created a more realistic feel. I absolutely loved it and left the theater thinking that the method employed could be used to enhance certain full-length theatrical releases.
The last film I saw in 3-D was Beowulf, and I quite enjoyed that.
Ebert: Me, too. Robert Zemeckis knew how to use 3-D, instead of just showing off with it,
Excellent analysis of 3D, and scientific. I appreciate what Mr. Ebert states here because he has made some excellent and very true points. I don't think 3D can survive "long-term" in its current technical state with objects leaping from the screen leaving the rest of the background behind. As Mr. Ebert points out here, this is not the way we see the world. Imagine if we did how many broken legs, arms, cracked skulls and elbows we would have from dodging normal and everyday encounters with objects. Imagine eating with a fork in 3D? Getting out of bed? Opening your car door? The world would be a bigger mess than it already is. Hollywood is turning to technology to produce gimmicks to keep box office rolling. But eventually the gimmicks have to give way to simply making a GOOD film with GREAT acting and a great script. I admire Mr. Ebert very much and it is too bad studio executives and filmmakers aren't paying attention to his sound advice.
- Warren
Reading this essay, I find myself replacing the word "3D" with "color" or "sound" and rereading this as hypothetical rants by Ebert's forebears in the '20s or '30s complaining about those unnecessary additions to the filmmaker's tools.
You can apply any technique to a film as long as the filmmaker is a true visionary, not a business man.
Beowulf and The Polar Express used 3D effectively in my opinion. Since you seem to agree (at least with Beowulf) it seems to me you object more strongly to the historical usage of 3D and not necessarily what the state of the art technology can produce?
I tend to agree that the best 3D should be more like a 'diorama' where there is substantial depth to the image, rather that having objects thrust a virtual millimeter from your face. Save that for the theme parks.
I can't argue that it's difficult to come up with an example of a film I wish was in 3D, but I wonder if that is perhaps a case of not knowing what we don't know. I dont think its a coincedence that the only two films that got 3D right so far were computer animated - until we see the first 'good' live action 3D we simply can't visualize what it might bring to the table, in the hands of a real artist.
Ebert: I liked "The Polar Express" too. I think I saw both that and "Beowulf" on an IMAX scree. Both seemed to understand the effect, which goes back to the widespread conclusion in the comments on the "effects" blog entry. I would argue, however, that both would have been even more effective in 2-D.
Don't forget "Dial M for Murder". Hitchcock used 3-D to make the movie look like a play. There was depth, but almost nothing thrown out at the audience. You really forgot you were at a 3-D movie, and could concentrate on the plot. I saw this some 27 years ago when the Detroit Film Theater had a festival of 3-D films shown with two projectors simultaneously. They also showed "Kiss Me Kate", and the audience only had to duck from screen projectiles when Ann Miller threw her ring and scarf at us.
(By the way, I don't think the 2-D version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (2008) will be so preferable, it is pretty lame by any dimension; Also, I had eyestrain by the end of the 3-D version, I wonder if anyone else noticed that?)
Maybe the 3D effect isn't effective in the current mode of film making and watching. The future of visual storytelling might leave the cinema behind.
There was a Hitchcock movie in 3D - "Dial M for Murder." I got to see this in 3D years ago, at the long-gone Dream Theater in Monterey, CA. This was a movie that understood how to use 3D. Hitch only used it in the obvious way once in the entire movie, at a crucial moment, and everyone freaked out.