3-D revolution is coming right at you, literally

The 3-D revolution has begun in Hollywood. Dating back nearly 50 years, 3-D technology is nothing new. But with the introduction of digital stereoscopic technology, the headaches and blur have been virtually eliminated.This time, it is likely that 3-D will be permanent. Sony has announced a line of 3-D LCD televisions and Blu-ray players that will be on the market this year; ESPN's 3-D station launches in June; and Avatar, described by box office analyst Jeff Bock as "The holy grail of 3-D," has grossed over a half-billion dollars more than any other film in history only nine weeks after its release.

I must admit, I was skeptical of this "game-changer." My exposure had been Disney Land at age 6 and Robert Rodriguez's atrocities "Spy Kids 3-D" and "Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D" (and no, Taylor Lautner couldn't act then, either). Even Robert Zemeckis' performance-capture attempts in "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf" did nothing to quell my fear that film was being killed off by Hollywood.

But when I saw Disney-Pixar's "Up," my rigid, traditionalist thought-process began to soften. Shortly thereafter, James Cameron changed cinema forever by transporting audiences four light-years away, to Pandora. I was converted, and I was fully willing to accept a third dimension into my cinematic experience.

The beauty of a well-shot 3-D film is in the subtlety. It shouldn't seem garish or contrived, but rather tangible. 3-D is meant to aid in transporting you to a new world, which is exactly what both Cameron and Pixar set out to do. The shots were so well-crafted and expertly-framed that at times it was easy to forget it was only rendered in 3-D. The filmmakers knew that 3-D is meant to enhance the experience, not make it.

Now, almost exactly two months later, I am again not so sure. The beauty of what I saw already seems to be disappearing. I recently caught a trailer for Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and cringed. Burton is a genius and crafts some of the most visually beautiful modern films. But the trailer looked campy in 2-D. It was obvious that Burton had made the movie for 3-D, as every shot had objects flying directly at the camera: Hats, swords, birds, spears, clothes, the Cheshire Cat, clocks, chairs, saliva, cups, etc. Everything was made to "pop-out." It was not subtle at all and seemed so artificial. These kinds of 3-D films look terrible in the 2-D format.

Since the creation of filmmaking, the two most significant revolutionary moments have arguably been the introduction of sound and color. This type of immature filmmaking and poor use of the new 3-D medium would be like if, in the first talkies, the actors yelled as loud as they could just to make sure the audience recognized that the film now had sound. Or imagine if the first color films had been made with the brightest neon colors imaginable, just so the audience couldn't ignore that the film was in color.

"Avatar" made me optimistic, but Hollywood is quickly making me skeptical. Are geniuses like Burton really running out of creativity in productions and resorting to clichéd framing and shots? Is Hollywood too immature for 3-D? Will they, like a child with a new toy, be so eager to play with it, that they completely ignore the proper technique? I fear that the answers to all these questions are yes. Please, Tim Burton, prove me wrong.



-Bretscher, a sophomore from St. Louis, Mo., is a history major with an interest in film criticism. features@thedepauw.com