This whole 3-dimensional thing kind of weirds me out, to be honest. I mean, I can deal with the "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" 3D show at Disneyland, but in my movie theatre? I can't help but think the technology, while fun, detracts from a story instead of enhancing it. As a moviegoer, while watching any sort of 3D show (like the "Terminator" show at Universal Studios, Hollywood), I'm so preoccupied with trying to predict the next thing that's going to pop out at me that I'm distracted from the story altogether.
That said, the article does address the pitfalls of working with such an easily-abused technology on film. I like the part where Selick, Coraline's creator, says he wanted to make it 3D "to be a part of our story, another world that seems richer, where you can breathe."
Most of this filmmaking stuff goes way over my head, especially when you're purposely trying to make something as fantastical as animation to look more real than, well, reality.
I'm interested in seeing the film, though. Who knows what it could mean for animated film in the future. Before you know it, we could be watching Saturday morning cartoons with 3D glasses.
I watched Coraline (in 3D) and must say it was rather well done. It really only added extra depth and perception to the film, but of course there was some gimmickry effect.
ReplyDeleteI agree though...the general use of 3D is not one I look forward to for the the reason you listed in your title: breaking the fourth wall. While it can be done well (Funny Games) this process takes out the often times necessary detachment that viewers need in order to truly appreciate a film. I feel film is not supposed to, as a medium, be interactive in such manner.
Then again....I guess watching Casablanca in 3D is a bonus?