Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Talking 3-D.

by Eric Kohn
November 5, 2010 6:20 AM
1 Comment
  • |


It's been over a year since "Avatar" stormed into theaters and made a strong case for the ongoing role of 3-D in Hollywood productions. That conversation might seem a little stale right now, but for the first installment in a weekly dialogue with my colleagues Anne Thompson and Leonard Maltin, we tried to find a way to make it fresh again. My own feeling is that 3-D alone can't do much for the moviegoing experience, and that thinking otherwise could lead to the alienation of movies that either can't afford the technology or stand to benefit from it on a creative level. It will remain, I think, an asterisk for most new releases -- although, as Leonard points out, that asterisk costs a few extra dollars at the box office. Anne explained how the recent surge of interest in 3-D no longer has much appeal for audiences as it did a few years ago, a fact that nicely dovetailed into a history lesson from Maltin about the last time 3-D seemed like the next big thing -- sixty years ago. Read the whole conversation here.

1 Comment

  • Jonathan Poritsky | November 8, 2010 11:45 AMReply

    I think 3D needs to be embraced by the arthouse community in a way that moves us forward, that makes us look at it differently. It's still the technology of gearheads, folks who want to push the technological limit, narrative be damned.

    The more I think about 3D, the more I wish ENTER THE VOID were 3D (yes, even *that* part). That's an example of a film that, for better or worse, reaches out of the screen and sucks you into a weird (messed the eff up) world. If a film like that, one that basically has no audience besides the sort of people who lament the death of film/2D/them-good-ol-days, could come along and prove that this is a visual space worth exploring, then this conversation will move beyond the "is it a gimmick or not" stage.

    Oy, we'll just have to wait another 50 years before we get 3D right.

Follow Me

Most "Liked"