TITANIC TO BE RE RELEASED IN THREE D. (don't hold your breath)
The Next Dimension
By Josh Quittner
stereoscopic viewing uses more neurons. That's possible. After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out. I was also totally entertained.
TOTALLY ENTERTAINED, AND YET NOT ONE THREE D MOVIE FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS. THE NEXT DIMENSION? BUT HOLLYWOOD IS STILL VERY UNWILLING. FIFTY MOVIES, AND NOT ONE IN THREE D EXCEPT SOME CARTOONS. THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN HOLLYWOOD. EVERYONE WANTS THREE D, AND THE LAST ONE WAS IN MARCH 08, AND WAS A B MOVIE, AND THERE'S NONE SCHEDULED UNTIL DECEMBER OF 09. AND ALL THIS EXCITEMTNT, A FIVE PAGE ARTICLE IN TIME MAGAZINE, AND NOTHING FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS?
THAT'S MORE THAN CRAZY. IT'S CRAZY. DON'T FILMAKERS HAVE ANY KIND OF INTEREST IN WHAT CONSUMERS WANT?? OF COURSE THEY DON'T. THEY ARE CAPITALISTIC PIGS. TO HELL WITH THEM. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. BUT WE CAN HATE THEM. YOU WOULD HOPE STEVEN COLBERT OR JOHN STEWART WOULD NOTICE THIS CRAZINESS. BUT THEY EITHER DON'T OR ARE TOLD TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
I'M EXPLAINING THINGS, NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY. JUST EXPLAINING HOW PEOPLE ARE GETTING THIS ALL WRONG.
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks Animation SKG, is betting the future of his studio on digital 3-D. While he's not the first to embrace the technology, he has become its most vocal evangelist, asserting that digital 3-D is now good enough to make it--after sound and color--the third sea change to affect movies. "This really is a revolution," he says.
Cameron's Avatar, due in December, could be the thing that forces theaters to convert to digital. Spielberg predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever. EVER. RIGHT. IN RELATION TO WHAT. TO JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH?? JAWS 3 D? SPIELBURG IS STUPID. THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY. FUCK SPIELBURG. HE'S A STUPID FUCKING BASTARD.
THERE'S SPIELBURG MAKING AN IDIOT OF HIMSELF AGAIN., BIGGEST THREE D LIVE ACTION FILM EVER. OUT OF TWO. THE BIGGEST OUT OF TWO. WHAT GOES THROUGH A SMART MAN'S BRAIN WHEN HE SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST IDIOTIC. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.
DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. MAYBE IN FIFTEEN YEARS. THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES THESE CAPITALIST BASTARDS TO SIGN OFF ON ANYTHING CONSUMERS WILL REALLY ENJOY, BUT WILL MEAN LOWER PROFIT MARGIN. FUCK THEM. BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. HOPE I'M WRONG. BUT I WOULD BET EVEN MONEY THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN, NOT FOR AT LEAST FIFTEEN YEARS. LOOK HOW LONG THEY HELD BACK TOUCH SCREEN MONITOR COMPUTERS. CSI COULDN'T LIVE WITHOUT THEM, STOCK MARKET BOYS AND REPORTERS THRIVE ON THEM. BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE TV AD FOR TOUCH SCREEN COMPUTERS UNTIL THE I PHONE, WHICH IS TOO SMALL TO REALLY SATISFY AS A COMPUTER.
HOPE YOU AGREE THIS KIND OF MAKES GOOD SENSE. DON'T JUST JUMP IN WITH AS MANY ARGUMENTS AS YOU CAN COME UP WITH OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD. DON'T BE CLOSED MINDED.
A LOT OF GOOD PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS ARE HELD BACK CAUSE THEY COST MORE THEN THEY ARE WORTH TO INVESTORS. THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT SEEMS RIGHT TO ME. MAKES SENSE. I'M JUST SAYING.
EARLY THREE D WAS AS GOOD AS EARLY COLOR PROCESSES. AND IT DIDN'T GIVE ANYONE HEADACHES. THAT WAS PLANTED TO KEEP THE PROCESS FROM BECOMING MANDITORY LIKE COLOR. WHICH COST MORE. THREE D COST MORE, AND THE OWNERS FIGURED, WHAT THE HELL, WHO NEEDS IT, FUCK THE CUSTOMERS. WHAT CUSTOMERS? IF TECHNICOLOR HAD WAITED FOR PERFECTION, GONE WITH THE WIND AND THE WIZARD OF OZ, AND HALF THE BOND FILMS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. AND THERE WERE PLENTY OF TOP FILM BANKERS THAT WOULD HAVE PREFERRED PUTTING COLOR ON HOLD FOR ANOTHER HALF CENTURY. AND THAT CONSUMER STIFFING IS AN OUTRAGE. BUT THERE IS NO OUTRAGE AT ALL. WHICH IS OK. I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY WE ARE. WE DON'T TAKE A STAND UNLESS IT IS TOUTED LOUDLY IN THE MEDIA. HUMAN BEINGS ARE SHEEP.
LIKE IT OR NOT I AM MAKING SENSE. NOT INSISTING ITS A FACT BUT THAT IT MIGHT BE A FACT. IT MAKES SENSE. IT IS A CONSPIRACY, BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SAYING SOMETHING IS A CONSPIRACY, THAT OWNERS, THE SUPPLY SIDE, CONSIPIRED, "CONSIPIRED" TO MAKE MORRE MONEY BY STIFFING THE CUSTOMERS, BY PUTTING OUT AN INFEERIOR PRODUCT THAT COST LESS SO THEY COULD GET A BETTER RETURN ON THEIR DOLLAR. HELL IF THEY'D ASKED ME, AS AN INVESTOR, IF I WOULD GIVE UP AN ADDED TWO PERCENT ON MY INVESTMENT SO PEOPLE COULD ENJOY COLOR IN THEIR MOVIES, I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR BLACK AND WHITE FOREVER. I NEED TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. THAT COMES FIRST. AND IF I INVEST IN MOVIES, I WANT THE BEST RETURN. SO SPEILBURG INVENTED BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES WITHOUT MOVIE STARS. SAVED INVESTORS A BUNDLE. AND A GOOD RETURN FOR HIM AS WELL, THE BASTARD. SPEILBURG IS THE GUY THAT WOULDN'T CONSIDER TAKING "PENIS BREATH" (PARDON MY LANGUAGE) OUT OF ET IN THE VIDEOS. NOW THAT IS ONE CRUEL FUCKING BASTARD. OR NOT. MAYBE YOU COULD ARGUE HIS SIDE, SO COULD I, BUT THERE IS VALIDITY ON MY SIDE. THERE IS SERIOUS REASON FOR OUTRAGE. IT'S NOT LIKE I'M SAYIONG THE MOON IS MADE OF SWISS CHEESE, CAUSE OF ALAL THE LITTLE ROUND HOLES. I AM SAYING SOMETHING WORTH CONSIDERING. NOT NECESSARILY TRUE OR CERTAIN, BUT, AT THE RISK OF REPEATING MYSELF (ATROM, THAT'S AN ACRONYM FOR AT THE RISK OF REPEATING MYSELF) BUT IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING. OR SHOULD I JUST FUCK MYSELF. AND I AM NOT FUNNY. I AM NOT TRYING TO BE A COMEDIAN. THAT IS TOO HARD FOR ME. THIS SERIOUS SHIT IS EASY. AND NOT VERY ENTERTAING EITHER. I MEAN, DON'T TRY ANY OF THIS AT PARTIES. VERY BORING SHIT. LIKE NEWSWEEK OR TIME MAGAZINE, OR THE NATION. SICK OF ALL THAT REPETITIVE SHIT.
THERE IS JUST SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT ALL THIS OR THERE ISN'T. EITHER THE TOTAL DISINTEREST IN 3 D IS WEIRD AND ANTI CONSUMER, OR IT ISN'T. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS. I AM SAYING MAYBE IT IS.
AND EVERYONE I EVER TALKED TO ABOUT THIS INSISTED I WAS WRONG;. WHICH IS SILLY, BECAUSE WHAT I AM SAYING MAKES SENSE. IT IS THE NEXT STEP AFTER SOUND AND COLOR. HELL, IF THEY HAD WAITED FOR SOUND TO BE PERFECTED, CITIZEN KANE AND CASABLANCA WOULD HAVE BEEN SILENT MOVIES. IF YOU DON'T AGREE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T AGREE. DO YOU MEAN THERE IS NO STRONG AND REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT WHAT I AM SAYING MAKES GOOD SENSE, AND NOT IN THE SENSE OF "ANYTHINGS POSSIBLE" WHICH IS A VERY STUPID CHEAP SHOT DISMISSIVE THING TO SAY. WHICH EVERY BALL BUSTER I EVER KNEW WOULD END UP SAYING. THINKING IT'S BETTER TO TRY AND BE FUNNY THAN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SOMEONE IS SAYING AND HOW THEY MAKE SENSE. IDIOTS THINK THE ONLY WAY TO THINK IS TO ARGUE.
BACK TO THE PREMISE. THAT'S THE TRUTH, AND IT IS A CRYING SHAME SO MANY MOVIES HAD TO BE VIEWED IN 2 D
The lights dim in the screening room. Suddenly, the doomed Titanic fills the screen--but not the way I remember in the movie. The luxury liner is nearly vertical, starting its slide into the black Atlantic, and Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging on for life, just like always. But this time, I am too. The camera pans to the icy water far below, pulling me into the scene--the sensation reminds me of jerking awake from a dream--and I grip the sides of my seat to keep from falling into the drink.
Most of us have seen the top-grossing film of all time. But not like this. The new version, still in production, was remade in digital 3-D, a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache. (See the 100 best movies of all time.)
Had digital 3-D been available a dozen or so years ago when he shot Titanic, he'd have used it, director James Cameron tells me later. "But I didn't have it at the time," he says ruefully. "Certainly every film I'm planning to do will be in 3-D."
Digital 3-D, which has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years, is finally ready for its closeup. Just about every top director and major studio is doing it--a dozen movies are slated to arrive this year,
NO. NOT A DOZEN. JUST CARTOONS. JUST ONE REAL MOVIE IS SLATED. SO WHY DO THESE ARTICLES LIE AND EXAGGERAGE? THIS IS TIME MAGAZINE. WHICH IS WHY THEY SHOUDLN'T EXAGGERATE? OF COURSE THEY EXAGGERATE. TIME MAGAZINE IS FULL OF YOUNG EAGER WRITERS AND EDITORS THAT DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT REAL ACCURACY.
THIS STATEMENT, A DOZEN THREE D MOVIES ARE SLATED TO ARRIVE THIS YEAR IS BUNK. ONLY ONE, THE REST IS CARTOONS. SO THAT'S AN EXAGGERATION, OR, BETTER PUT, A LIE.
with dozens more in the works for 2010 and beyond. These are not just animations but live-action films, comedies, dramas and documentaries. Cameron is currently shooting a live-action drama, Avatar, for Fox in 3-D. Disney and its Pixar studio are releasing five 3-D movies this year alone, including a 3-D-ified version of Toy Story. George Lucas hopes to rerelease his Star Wars movies in 3-D. And Steven Spielberg is currently shooting Tintin in it, with Peter Jackson doing the 3-D sequel next year. Live sports and rock concerts in 3-D have been showing up at digital theaters around the U.S. nearly every week. NEARLY EVERY WEEK?? ANOTHER LIE. SURE, THE JONAS BROTHERS AND THE LIKE. HOW CAN THEY BE SO EXCITED ABOUT THIS JUNK. AND ONLY ONE OR TWO OF THEM. NOT NEARLY EVERY WEEK. LYING BASTARDS. SAY WHATEVER COMES TO MIND.
TWO THREE D MOVIES. TINTIN. JUST ONE STAR. NEVER ENOUGH, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. AND A GOOD SOLID FACT BASED ONE AT THAT. EVERY GREAT FILM HAS USED STAR POWER. THAT IS A FACT. IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION OR TWO, IT WON'T MATTER.
TINTIN MAY TURN OUT AS A SECOND RATE KIDS FILM. OR NOT. LIKE THE LION THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE. NOT MASTERPIECES BY ANY MEASURE. TINTIN. ONE STAR. A BIG ONE, JAMES BOND HIMSELF. HOPE IT'S A MASTERPIECE, BUT I HAVE SOME DOUBTS.
>THE REST OF THE CAST IS UNKNOWNS. SIMON PEGG (FIFTY THOUSAND ZOMBIES) JAMIE BELL (ONE FILM, BILLY ELLIOT), OK. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY. I JUST HAVE MY DOUBTS. I'LL REST MY CASE, AND HOPE I'M WRONG. ANDY SERKIS, NICK FROST, MACKENZIE CROOK, TOBY JONES, GAD ELMALEH ENN REITEL AND SONJE FORTAG. BIGGIES INDEED. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYONE OVER FORTY BEING INTERESTED. ONLY ONE STAR. DANIEL CRAIG. FROM THE GREATEST JAMES BOND FILM. BUT STILL, ANOTHER ONE STAR MOVIE.
LOOK AT THE CAST OF AVATOR.
OK. TWO BIGGIES, SIGUOURNEY WEAVER, A BIT LONG IN THE TOOTH, A SUPPORTING PART BY DEFINITION. NOT A LEADING LADY, AND STEPHEN LANG, A GREAT CHARACTER ACTOR. BUT AT BEST THIS IS ANOTHER SPIELBURG NON STAR VEHICLE. HOPE IT'S A SERIOUS MOVIE, BUT I HAVE MY DOUBTS. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS WAS A SERIOUS MOVIE. THE DEPARTED WAS A SERIOUS MOVIE. TITANIC. PULP FICTION. MULTI STARRED. THE USUAL SUSPECTS, GOODFELLAS THE BIG LEBOWSKI, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. BONNY AND CLYDE , ROSEMARY'S BABY, CHINATOWN, CAPE FEAR, SCHINDLER'S LIST, CASABLANCA, WALL STREET, JFK,
JAKE SULLY, MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ, JOE SALDANA, GIOVANNI RIBISI, TO HELL WITH THEM. THESE MONEY GRUBBERS WILL ALWAYS GET IT WRONG. THESE ARE NOT SERIOUS MASTERPIECE LEVEL MOVIES, NOT IN THE SENSE OF GANGS OF NEW YORK OR THE GODFATHER, OR GONE WITH THE WIND, MULTI STAR MASTERPIECES. AND THE STARS DID MAKE THOSE MOVIES SING. LIKE IT OR NOT, SPIELBURGS NON STAR MOVIES HAVE BEEN FLOPS. HIS BEST TWO FILMS USED STAR POWER. BUT ARGUE ALL YOU WANT. I'M WRONG OR RIGHT. I DON'T CARE REALLY. I JUST WISH THEY WOULD MAKE SOME REALLY APPEALING MOVIES IN THREE D.
With the release on March 27 of Monsters vs. Aliens, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks Animation SKG, is betting the future of his studio on digital 3-D. While he's not the first to embrace the technology, he has become its most vocal evangelist, asserting that digital 3-D is now good enough to make it--after sound and color--the third sea change to affect movies. "This really is a revolution," he says.
Over the past few years, Katzenberg has repositioned DreamWorks as a 3-D-animation company. From Monsters on, all its movies will be made, natively, in 3-D. (Many animation studios create the 3-D effect in postproduction.) That's a pretty big commitment since 3-D involves even more computer power than usual. The DreamWorks crew invokes "Shrek's law," which holds that every sequel takes about twice as long to render--create a final image from models--as the movie that preceded it. Authoring the movie in 3-D effectively doubles the time called for by Shrek's law.
That requires an extreme amount of horsepower--the computational power of DreamWorks' render farm puts it roughly among the 15 fastest supercomputers on the planet. The studio partnered with Hewlett-Packard and Intel and built an enormous test bed on more than 17,500 sq. ft. in California. The Silicon Valley companies are hot on 3-D because they believe it's how people will navigate the Web and the desktops of their PCs and that it will be standard on computers and HDTVs.
CARTOONS AND MORE CARTOONS.
At DreamWorks, I watched a Monsters filmmaker peer through an elaborate camera rig that allowed him to "previsualize" a scene before shooting it. As he panned across the room we were standing in, he flew over a computer-generated 3-D image of the White House war room--the set for a scene in which the President (voiced by Stephen Colbert) meets with his staff to discuss an alien invasion. The camera let the director precisely manage the z-axis and decide which elements in the background, midground and foreground needed to be lit and focused.
GOSHA-ROOTIE. Z AXIS, ELEMENTS, MIDGROUND, LIT AND FOCUSED. WOW. FILMAKERS RULE. GOLLY GEE.
Katzenberg says going 3-D adds about 15% to his costs--which is nothing compared with the profits studios anticipate as the digital transformation takes hold. Digital 3-D movies usually gross at least three times as much as their flat-world counterparts--thanks in part to the higher ticket prices and longer runs they garner. Another benefit: 3-D films are far more difficult for digital-camera-toting moviegoers to pirate. (See pictures of movie costumes.)
Beyond the venal, however, filmmakers say that 3-D, like sound and color, really breaks down the barrier between audience and movie. "At some level, I believe that any movie benefits from 3-D," Lord of the Rings director Jackson says. "As a filmmaker, I want you to suspend disbelief and get lost in the film--participate in the film rather than just observe it. On that level, 3-D can only help."
GOLLY GOSH. WHO WOULDA THUNK. THAT THREE D COULD BE GOOD.
3-D Movies, Take 8
If the return of the 3-D movie sounds like a rerun, that's because it is. By some counts, this is 3-D's eighth incarnation, and to date, it hasn't exactly revolutionized the industry. The first stereoscopic movies appeared in the U.S. before the last Great Depression, disappeared, then enjoyed a schmaltzy revival in the 1950s with such blockbusters as House of Wax (1953). They've cropped up intermittently ever since, typically attached to high-camp vehicles like Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973).
"To me, 3-D has always been the circus coming to town," AND A REAL SHAME THAT IT WAS GIVEN SUCH SHORT SHRIFT. PISSES ME OFF. REALLY. I HAVE BEEN PISSED OFF FOR FIFTY YEARS ABOUT THIS. says Daniel Symmes, a 3-D historian and film-industry veteran. ."
But proponents say digital 3-D is a different animal from the analog stuff that came before 2005. Viewers often wore cardboard glasses
CARDBOARD. RIGHT, WE DIDN'T HAVE PLASTIC YET. WISH WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE GLASSES OUT OF PLASTIC.
with red and cyan cellophane lenses (similar to but somewhat different from what you see in this magazine). As just about everyone knows, old-school 3-D was less than awesome.NO, IT WAS FUCKING AWESOME. Colors looked washed out. Some viewers got headaches. A few vomited. NOBODY VOMITED. "Making your customers sick is not a recipe for success," Katzenberg likes to say. HA HA. KATZENBERG... THAT IS ONE FUNNY GUY.
It was cumbersome to produce too. In the old days, two 65-mm, 150-lb. film cameras--each shooting the same scene in sync--were used to make a 3-D picture. The gap between the lenses simulates the space between our eyes, adding space perception. But with film, you never knew how the shot would turn out until later.
THIS IS THE CREEPY LYING PART.
The birth of high-definition, digital filmmaking changed all that. Cameron and an associate, Vince Pace, developed the 3-D-capable Fusion camera system, which is cheaper, smaller--13 lb. each--and way more versatile than the old film rigs. "Every movie I made, up until Tintin, I always kept one eye closed when I've been framing a shot," Spielberg told me. That's because he wanted to see the movie in 2-D, the way moviegoers would. "On Tintin, I have both of my eyes open."
Read "3-D Movies: Coming Back at You."
A Beverly Hills company called Real D took the lead on the theater side. It leases out a kind of digital shutter system that sits in front of digital projectors, alternating the two views of each frame 144 times per sec.--fast enough to achieve stereovision. The new system uses polarization, rather than color-coding. Gone are the completely cheesy cardboard glasses, replaced with slightly less cheesy disposable plastic-frame glasses that have gray lenses. "Someday," predicts Katzenberg, "people will buy their own movie glasses, which they'll take to the movies--like people have their own tennis rackets."
Even if you're willing to grant him the glasses, there's still one problem. For digital 3-D to work, the movie theater must first convert from analog to digital--that is, from reels of film to data feeds. Theaters have been slow to do it, citing the expense and security. Disney chairman Dick Cook is credited with breaking the initial logjam with Chicken Little in 2005. About 75 theaters converted to digital to show the film, and a surprising thing happened: 3-D theaters reported three to four times the box-office gross as those that showed the 2-D version. (All 3-D movies can easily be stepped down to 2-D and are typically TYPICALLY, YOU MEAN HAVE BEEN SHOWN. THERE IS ONLY ONE THREE D LIVE ACTION FILM A PIECE OF SHIT VOYAGE TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO BE CLOSED DOWN, SO THEY WENT WITH THREE D. THEY ARE TALKING AS THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF THREE D NON CARTOON FILMS, WHILE, IN FACT, THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE. THIS IS JUST LYING LIKE AS GODDAMNED FUCKING RUG!!!
shown in both forms.) That was the jump start digital 3-D needed. Katzenberg predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week.
But in this economy, will people spend as much as $15 a ticket for a movie? Katzenberg is optimistic, pointing out that consumers are cutting back on everything but cheap entertainment. "The movies have been the greatest beneficiary of this," he says. "So to offer a new, exciting premium version of a bargain will be a big winner."
The Future of 3-D
Cameron's Avatar, due in December, could be the thing that forces theaters to convert to digital. Spielberg predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever.
THERE'S MY BOY SPIELBURG MAKING AN IDIOT OF HIMSELF AGAIN., BIGGEST THREE D LIVE ACTION FILM EVER. OUT OF TWO. THE BIGGEST OUT OF TWO. WHAT GOES THROUGH A SMART MAN'S BRAIN WHEN HE SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST IDIOTIC. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.
More than a thousand people have worked on it, at a cost in excess of $200 million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge. Cameron wrote the treatment for it in 1995 as a way to push his digital-production company to its limits. ("We can't do this," he recalled his crew saying. "We'll die.") He worked for years to build the tools he needed to realize his vision. The movie pioneers two unrelated technologies--e-motion capture, which uses images from tiny cameras rigged to actors' heads to replicate their expressions, and digital 3-D.
Avatar is filmed in the old "Spruce Goose" hangar, the 16,000-sq.-ft. space where Howard Hughes built his wooden airplane. The film is set in the future, and most of the action takes place on a mythical planet, Pandora. The actors work in an empty studio; Pandora's lush jungle-aquatic environment is computer-generated in New Zealand by Jackson's special-effects company, Weta Digital, and added later.
I couldn't tell what was real and what was animated--even knowing that the 9-ft.-tall blue, dappled dude couldn't possibly be real. The scenes were so startling and absorbing that the following morning, I had the peculiar sensation of wanting to return there, as if Pandora were real.
Cameron wasn't surprised. One theory, he says, is that 3-D viewing "is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2-D viewing doesn't." His own theory is that stereoscopic viewing uses more neurons. That's possible. After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out. I was also totally entertained.
No comments:
Post a Comment