Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 25,882
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 58
I know, that's always been Cameron's limitation.It's not really like the 3D option is taking away resources from the other branches of production. They're all separate foundations hired specifically for a certain task. Avatar's story wasn't hurt because of 3D, that was all on Cameron.
Asking "what does 3D add to the story" is a pretty self-defeatist concept. Stories in their most basic form can be relegated to spoken word or text. Anything beyond that could be considered "unnecessary" elements to the narrative, is it not? Because if so, cinema as an artform is irrelevant going by your standards of narrative implementation.


What I mean is that studios will use 3D as a crutch to prop up and excuse an otherwise weak film instead of trying to make the movie itself better. It's not a question of whether 3D will add to the film, it's what the looming presence of 3D technology might take away from the making of it, if you're not James Cameron and have an unlimited budget and power.
3D can add to the experience of a film, if done right and the movie is still pretty strong. Avatar would still be visually beautiful without the 3D. I haven't bothered to spend the money watching Alice or Clash in 3D (both of which have reportedly terrible post-processed 3D), but if the results are still poor for most films, then it's still just used as a cash grab. I don't respect that.
I''m sorry, I thought we were starting to move away from that with TDK and IM.We've been there for the past 2 decades. Where are you?![]()
