Coppola: 3D is just a device to get you to spend more money on seeing a movie

[BurtWorm]

It is a fad that comes and goes. It'll go again. And be back again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/francis-ford-coppola-3d-i_n_573858.html





Roger Ebert has been one of the most outspoken critics of 3D movies yet, blasting it as "a waste of a perfectly good dimension" and "juvenile abomination"

Now Oscar-winning director Francis Ford Coppola has chimed with his own critique of 3D, a technology he describes as "tiresome" and little more than a way "to make you pay more money for a ticket."

Despite having made 3D films himself (like the 1986 Captain Eo, starring Michael Jackson), Coppola isn't convinced by the new medium.

"I don't see why a movie is better in 3D," he told Electronic House. "I would rather make a movie in regular 2D and move to larger format for some big scenes much like Abel Gance did with 'Napoleon.'"

"I feel that until you can watch 3D without glasses, it's the same thing we know," he said. "I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses."

Coppola's comments echoed Ebert's sharp-tongued analysis of 3D movies.

In a recent editorial in Newsweek, Ebert blasted 3D for "<adding> nothing essential to the moviegoing experience."

[onehandle]

1. I totally agree. And yes, the glasses suck. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. They both have it right.

A gimmick.

Instead of concentrating on good screen-writing, and good acting.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I'm told all Avatar needed was a decent script and story. nt

[WeDidIt]

4. It's fucking cool as shit to watch, too.

But only if the movie is actually shot in 3D rather than blatant attempts to cash in on 3D by adding the effects later.

[DJ13]

6. Which most studios dont want to do

Cameron said that to do 3D the right way adds an extra 8-10 months to the production time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Agreed.

Even in Avatar it gets boring after 15 minutes, and it ends with the same old cliches like throwing spears at you and shit.

And it only works in deep focus, and you end up hobbling the cinematographer.

[Codeine]

7. "A juvenile abomination"

That about fucking sums it up, doesn't it? Films are increasingly an endless slew of digital noise; hard on the eyes and numbing to the brain. Occasionally the art and the technology meld nicely (Batman Begins was brilliant, IMO) but for the most part it rarely rises above the level of visual assault.

[eilen]

11. Remember the last Star Wars movie? I got a headache with the overuse

of special effects/chase/action combined with the audio.

[donco6]

8. I like it.

It's fun.

So, like, that's a bad thing now?

[Imajika]

9. Completely agree...

3D is just not worth the extra money - at least not in my opinion.

[Johonny]

10. so is sound, color, etc...

If people still went to silent black and white movies then that's what 90 % of the movies would be. Hell if people would show up to see still photographs there wouldn't even be moving pictures. So file this under the duh department.

[BurtWorm]

13. Unlike those other elements, 3D keeps trying and failing to stick.

With those other elements, you don't need an extra medium to view the film through. As one of these guys said, if they can ever figure out how to use 3D without encumbering the viewer with extra paraphernalia, maybe they'll have something worth adding to every film. Until then, it's only going to be used in novelties, mostly, and blockbusters. Personal filmmakers aren't going to need it or use it as a rule.

[johnaries]

12. Actually, Ebert praised the 3-D as used in Avatar.

I agree that in most cases 3-D has been used as a "gimmick" and has actually been detrimental to the total movie-going experience. In fact, James Cameron has made this same argument.

However, when used correctly 3-D can add (literally) an extra dimension and enhance the experience.

"Avatar" was a perfect example of how 3-D SHOULD be used. I saw "Clash of the Titans" in 2-D simply because I heard the 3-D version was so bad. I enjoyed it throughly. My friends who saw the 3D version hated it.

So, again, it's not the technology - it's how it is used. That's why some movies are still better in the B&W version than Color.