That is exactly my problem with 3D, total gimmick. Not to mention how dim it is compared to normal 2D.
A director cannot get away from having something come flying at you. I recently went to see the 2nd Hobbit (in 2D) and it is so painfully obvious when you can tell something is supposed to be "flying at you". What is this Disney World?
I am however looking forward to VR people making "Ready Player One"-like movies in the future where you are truly immersive.
Gravity was the first 3D movie I've seen, and I was quite pleased at how little they decided to gratuitously do that.
On the other hand, there are numerous animated films I've seen on DVD in the last few years (Despicable Me 2 being the latest example) that had entire sections that clearly existed for no other reason than to justify the 3D ticket price.
I enjoyed Gravity, the 3D effect occasionally added to the experience and didn't detract much. I wait for the next time 3D really adds to the experience before I do it again, and I'm guessing that will be a long time.
The 3D ads before Gravity started (including Hobbit 2), on the otherhand, were often unwatchable.
I think Gravity is a special case, Cuaron (and/or his team) can make depth out of flat 2D, Children of Men had me speechless quite a few times (the motorcycle ambush...).
Oh it was. I've never seen a 3D movie before, I went specifically because so many critics I trust had said it may have been the first case of 3D done well and actually being useful to the storytelling.
But that's the same reason I don't expect to do it again any time soon. What were the previous movies where 3D was supposed to be a big part of the experience? Avatar? Polar Express? Even if those were perfect movies, they were years and years ago. The last time I even gave it a second thought was Hugo.
Gravity made a lot of sense, because you convey just how alone the characters were in the volume of space. It's going to be a while before someone makes a movie 1) with a good script and 2) a good director that 3) really uses 3D well.
I have no problem with 3D (when it's used properly, but that's true of everything and shouldn't need to be said). I like how the article is supposedly using "science" to "prove" what is already disproven plainly and empirically. 3D does work.
A director cannot get away from having something come flying at you. I recently went to see the 2nd Hobbit (in 2D) and it is so painfully obvious when you can tell something is supposed to be "flying at you". What is this Disney World?
I am however looking forward to VR people making "Ready Player One"-like movies in the future where you are truly immersive.