 In this image released by Sony Pictures, from left, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones appear in a scene from “Ghostbusters.” (Sony Pictures via Associated Press) Every week, I answer a question from the previous Monday’s chat in the Wednesday edition of this newsletter. You can read the transcript of this week’s chat here. And if you’d like to submit a question for the Aug. 8 chat, you can do that here. Longtime lurker, 1st chat. I’m not a fan of 3D movies, which set off my vertigo (I have [multiple sclerosis]), But I’ve read that 3D made this “Ghostbusters “a better movie, and rendered its relationships more complex and welcoming. Is this really part of 3D’s potential? And what does that mean for people like me, and migraine sufferers triggered by those movies? I suddenly feel like Marlee Matlin [without] sign language. With major media investing more and more in 3D, I’m wondering if 2D movies will go the way of poetry. I didn’t see “Ghostbusters” in 3-D, so I can’t speak to the specific impact of 3-D on it, though I’ve likewise heard that this edition has a number of technical innovations that people seemed to enjoy. And in general, I’m a bit of a 3-D skeptic, not least because I wear glasses, and putting 3-D glasses on top of my spectacles tends to enhance any problems in the 3-D transfer. That said, I’ve definitely found occasional visual extravaganzas to be improved by 3-D, particularly films such as “Gravity” that understand that the value of the effect is that it can pull you into the frame, rather than simply flinging things out at you. All of this said, I don’t think that 2-D movies are immediately going to become a thing of the past. Plenty of comedies and dramas don’t require the sort of visual hoopla that 3-D offers, and, as a result, studios aren’t going to go to the expense of making them available in 3-D. Also, as long as most people aren’t watching movies at home on 3-D-capable equipment, studios are still going to have to make 2-D versions of their films. So I think most stories will continue to be accessible to you, even though there may be a quality gap for some films. Which is not to minimize that quality gap. Like I said, I have yet to see many films that feel absolutely essential in 3-D. As more directors become more thoughtful about the medium, that number may increase. It’s possible that breakthroughs in the technology and in the calibration of 3-D glasses may make the medium less vertigo-enhancing (I’ve occasionally thought about seeing whether it might be possible for me to buy prescription 3-D glasses). But as the movies teeter on the edge of this period of innovation, you’re right to raise these issues, and they’re ones directors, studios and theater chains should think about if they want to reach as many moviegoers as they possibly can. |
Twitter
Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment