true...we can enjoy forms of art and entertainment even if we strip away some of what makes that art/entertainment complete, but that doesn't mean that those elements are meaningless.
THat's not what I'm saying at all. First, in the examples I gave, those forms of art
are complete. They don't need further enhancement. A piece of music without visuals is complete. It doesn't need imagery. WE create the accompanying imagery in our own minds and souls. That's the point. The other sensory elements are their own form of art, meant to exist independently or to meld together when necessary. Art after all isn't life, but an expression and interpretation of life. For some works, the interpreation is about sound, color, movement and dimension. For others its the lack of some of those elements that make the work complete. For example with a painting the point is capturing and freezing a moment in time, so movement would hamper that.
the more you add to a movie the more immersed viewers will become. that was the whole point of introducing sound and color in the first place, to further immerse viewers in the movie...so again, 3D is simply the next evolutionary step for the art of filmmaking.
That's not true at all. Film is again, another form of art. For some films, the lack of sound and color make the narrative MORE REAL. Films like Psyco or many of the noirs of the 40's and 50's
needed the starkness of black and white to call attention to the barren and harsh nature of the characters' lives. A film like "The Grapes of Wrath" should not be in color. For physical comedians like Chaplin or Keaton, the lack of dialogue enhanced their performances. It also created a surreal world where their wackiness would not seem out of place. On the other hand, epic films like Gone With The Wind, The Searchers or the Ten Commandments needed color to enrich the narrative. Which is why I'd guess DeMille remade Commandments from his silent Black & White version.
What immerses us in narrative films is first and foremost story and character. For many films the 3D effect would detract from that. However, there are certainly some films that would, by their nature benefit from 3D. Just not Spider-Man.
i'd just like to point out that this is purely your opinion and not a fact. 3D has evolved everything from special effects, to architecture, to video games...even medical practices.
I'm not talking about any of those technical types of filmmaking, which I agree 100% would be enhanced by 3D effect. I'm talking about narrative film, which is the subject of this debate.
just because you, personally, don't think 3D evolves art doesn't make it so. convincing 3D is practically a newborn to the movie industry. you haven't even given a chance for filmmakers to experiment with this new technology...yet you're already writing 3D off as useless from a storytelling standpoint. you're not even taking into consideration the types of camera shots and transitions that might not work as 2D shots/transitions but could work beautifully in a 3D film.
There isn't a single shot and transition that doesn't work in 2D. I'd love for you to point to some examples. And the reason I'm sure 3D won't enhance story telling is because we've had over 100 years worth of great films without it, and not A SINGLE film that was made better because of it. Again, 3D may enhance for some the
experience of seeing a film, but that's along the lines of people thinking movies should all be colorized.
i don't see why not. as i expressed before, i like watching Beowulf on it's own but seeing it in 3D made me feel like i was actually in those locations. Grendel's first scene where he raids the mead hall was much more intense and effective with depth perception. there were a couple of times throughout the movie where i could almost smell the blood being spilled because the 3D added such a visceral element that seeing it, even on my HDTV with all the lights off, cannot duplicate. i'll admit that this does nothing to change the story or the plot, but it certainly adds a 5th element (if you will) that basically felt like the cherry on top. to me, Beowulf on Blu-Ray is like a sundae or banana split without that cherry. sure, it still tastes/looks good and is fun to eat/watch...but it's not quite the same without the cherry/3D.
And you make my point. 3D only enhances your experience of the movie. Not the movie. In the scene when Beowulf lands in Denmark for example, and the soldier points the spear at his eye, I didn't need to "feel" like he was sticking it in
my eye to make me feel any more tension. And Grendel's attack in the mead hall was intense for me because he was killing people. I didn't need to feel as though the victims were being tossed at me or thr blood splashing on me to feel their pain.
well since we've gone into metaphor land, hehe...i'd equate fake breast-like enhancements more to the introduction of special effects (digital and practical). theoretical speaking...
No way. Advancing of special effects is totally a story telling tool. From Moses parting the Red Sea to the T-1000's morphing ability, to Sandman and Spidey, those were all elements to strengthen the narrative. The fact that there are many bad films made with nothing to lean on but big special effects doesn't negate the technology's importance to make good films better. Again. look at subtle uses such as removing Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump. or placing Forrest in the room with the Presidents.
if you actually wanted to make a woman's breasts appear larger then you would either put some prosthetics on her (ala Selma Blair in 'A Dirty Shame') or you would use digital imaging to manipulate her chest. on the other hand, i would equate 3D to TOUCHING those fake breast-like enhancements since 3D makes most people feel like they can touch what they're seeing.
Well, while your point is an enjoyable one, that isn't what I meant. I referred to fake breasts as a thing which gives the false idea of beauty. You have beautiful women deforming and injuring themselves because they can't see the beuaty that already exists. 3D technology distracts from and can even lessen the impact that the filmic narrative already has.
however, i WILL agree with you (as i've said in a previous post) that no amount of 3D can ever top the importance of a solid script. i simply disagree that 3D is a useless gimmick that can only be used for cheap thrills and does not evolve the art form of film making.
Well we go to movies for entertainment. So I would have no problem with SOME of Spidey 4's prints being released in 3D format. But I'm completely against it being forced down our throats.
