John Scalzi - Two Basic Rules for Headache-Free SciFi in 3D
Over the weekend I took my daughter and a friend of hers to go see Coraline (more accurately, I wanted to go see it and used the two of them as a convenient excuse), and like many of the folks who saw it, we went to a 3D presentation. Watching the movie, I realized two things: First, Coraline is probably the best example of 3D I've seen so far, with the effect generally used subtly rather than to, say, stick a spear right between my eyes. Second, even as good as Coraline's 3D is, it still gave me a headache and reminded that 3D movies are not something I'm all that enthused about.
Why does this matter? Because movies -- particularly science fiction and fantasy movies -- are going increasingly 3D. Later this year the animated scifi spoof Monsters Vs Aliens will be screening across the U.S. in three-dimensional glory, and then at the end of the year James Cameron has promised to wow us with his mad 3D skillz when he debuts the hotly-anticipated Avatar. And those are just the ones I'm looking forward to.
Movie companies like 3D because it's something that doesn't work well at home (yet), so it keeps people coming to theaters, and also because they can charge more for the experience. I'm not going to argue against either, especially in a recession, but if we are going to have a largely 3D future in the cinema, allow me to make the following suggestions.
First and most importantly, filmmakers should learn how not to make 3D hurt their audiences. I get headaches at 3D movies for two reasons: Misaligned glasses, which are my fault, and quick cuts in the movie, which are the filmmakers'. The problem with quick cuts in 3D flicks is that they require your eyes to do a quick, hard refocus -- and since the focal point in each scene is likely to be at a different depth, that means your eyes are working overtime.
The amount your eyes refocus in day to day life is relatively low, since most of us are usually looking at one thing for an extended period of time (for example, hi, you've been looking at your computer screen for a couple minutes now). A typical movie, however, has lots of cuts, and sometimes those cuts jerk around between closeups and far shots. In a traditional 2D movie this is no big deal, since you see it all on a single plane. In 3D, your corneas start to scream trying to keep up. Filmmakers need to stop using a two dimensional vocabulary on a three dimensional space.
Secondly, if filmmakers are seriously going to pursue 3D then they need to make it more than a gimmick -- it needs to be something without which the story would suffer. Let's go back 70 years to The Wizard of Oz, which used a process that was still something of a novelty back in 1939: Color. The movie didn't treat color as a gimmick -- it was essential to the plot in that it delineated the difference between hardscrabble, depression-era Kansas (shot in black and white) and the fantastical Oz. You could have made the movie entirely in black and white, but it wouldn't have been nearly as effective. The process was essential to the story.
I'm not at all convinced there's been a flick in which the same is true for 3D. To go back to Coraline, the effect was excellent and interesting, but strip out the third dimension and the movie fundamentally works as well as it did before. So I have to ask, as a moviegoer prone to 3D headaches, why I need to see the movie that way and incidentally pay extra for my trouble.
Will there be a movie that needs 3D any time soon? On this score, I have to admit I have some high expectations for Cameron's Avatar. The director has a history of pushing filmmaking technology, simply because the technology he needs to do what he wants usually doesn't exist before he invents it. I have some faith based on experience that if Cameron says he needs 3D for his movie, he actually needs it. That's why I'll actually be willing to risk a potential headache for this one -- something I'm not necessarily willing to do for all the other 3D offerings this year.
What do you think? Is 3D still a gimmick? Did I miss an essential 3D flick?
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.
"Secondly, if filmmakers are seriously going to pursue 3D then they need to make it more than a gimmick -- it needs to be something without which the story would suffer."
This doesn't bode well for the DVD & Blu-Ray releases for those movies. Continuing your example, would you buy a DVD of the Wizard of Oz if it was entirely in black & white?
I took my (slightly younger) kids to see Bolt in 3D on Sunday. I was impressed with the 3D from the technical point of view but the refocus thing to my near half-centurion eyes got a little tedious: form time to time the image would split as my poor old peepers took a rest. At least they refrained from overdoing the monster perspective shots.
I wonder if this will actually turn out to be more of a marketing opportunity for the studios than they currently realise: why shouldn't they produce separate edits for 2- and 3-D? Even for animation it ought not to be too fierce: just run multiple camera angles (OK, the modelling's going to need to work from all angles, which may not necessarily be true at present, but that's just - hah! - software).
Would I go to see a fast-cutting 2D option after the more sedately-cut 3D version? If the movie was any good if think I just might. Nothing would induce me to sit through, say, Pooh's Heffalump Movie again, but two versions of The Incredibles, or Wall-E? Sure.
TWoO wasn't B&W in the KS scenes. It was sepia tone. Not that this invalidates your point at all about the differences in style between KS and Oz scenes.
One note on how Coraline made it "more than a gimmick" -- there were two different model sets. The "real" world kitchen had a depth of about a foot, the "other' world about five feet. This added an element of hyper-realism to the other world, This is more subtle than moving from B&W to color, but significant nevertheless, something that wouldn't have worked in 2D.
@Jamie Bowden: The KS scenes were shot in B&W -- sepia toning is done during development. So technically Scalzi is correct.
@joelfinkle: It didn't register with me at the time, but thinking back I do remember the "other" kitchen being much bigger than the "real" kitchen. I disagree though that this would be enough to 'justify' the 3D treatment -- the difference in depth would be just as noticeable in 2D.
I liked the way Robert Rodriguez made the 3D integral to the plot in Spy Kids 3D AND made it periodic (telling the audience when to put on their glasses and when to take them off) so you didn't have to strain your eyes with the 3D glasses through the whole thing. In other news.... there is an adult with no children who has seen all 3 Spy Kids movies in the theater.
I thought the use of 3D in Coraline was absolutely beautiful. With the exception of the opening credits, there was never a totally blatant 3D punch during the rest of the movie.
And the opening scenes were fantastic - the house, the sign waving back and forth, the mountains in the background. It just looked so full of depth. I think cartoons work with 3D better than a live action film does.
But you're right - without 3D, Coraline would still be worth watching and enjoying. With 3D, it's an extra treat to watch and enjoy, and a good reason to go to the movies.
When you go to see a 3D movie, do you still get the paper glasses with the coloured plastic lenses?
Westpilton: no, the glasses are made with polarized lenses; this allows color to be shown in the film in glorious 3D.
I have to admit I didn't experience any headaches with the film; and this was only the 3rd 3D film I've ever seen, ever (the first was at EPCOT center in the early 1980s).
I'd see Coraline again, not because of the 3D, but because it was just about the best film I'd seen since Wall•E--that, for me, made the 3D really worthwhile.
That's good to know. I haven't seen a 3D movie since the 80s when they used the coloured plastic. I am very left-eye dominant because of an astygmatism, so they never worked for me.
In university I went to a research centre where they had developed large glasses that made for better 3D, and those did sort of work for me. I saw those again outside a showing of that deep water documentary by James Cameron, so I figured the technology had changed, but then I started hearing about people being asked to recycle their glasses or take them home after Coraline, and I was worried they had gone back. I suppose I should go see if the new glasses work for me.
Personally, I've yet to see a 3D film where the 3D wasn't a gimmick. Even the ones they show at the Kennedy Space Center seem gimmicky, if educational.
@westpilton: The new polarized 3D glasses are light-years better than the red-blue 3D glasses.
To an extent, everything about moving pictures is a gimmick: the fact that the persistence of vision is tricked into seeing motion, that's a gimmick.
Color is definitely a gimmick, since there are plenty of modern films which scarcely make use of the color film they're shot on.
Bust because somethings a "gimmick" doesn't preclude it from being used in subtle or plot-specific ways (for example, the yellow brick road is certainly better off yellow than, say, light grey).
I'm totally going again, if for no other reason than I was surprised that it actually arrived up here in Anchorage in 3D.
Damn you! You're absolutely right about Cameron. And the movie will probably be 2.5 hours long, and it *will* be worth the migraine. Well then...I guess I'll be buying popcorn, just so I can use the bag for motion sickness.
I don't envy whoever has to clean up THAT theatre.
Here's one poor sod with middle aged eyes who absolutely loved Bolt and Beowulf in 3D. No headaches, just ten dollars worth o' cheap thrills.