Have you seen a James Cameron movie recently? Think about it. Or just check him out on IMDB. Titanic swept through the Oscars, including a Best Director statue for Cameron, over 10 years ago.  Since then, his filmography looks like this: three deep-sea documentaries, including two that were filmed in 3D, and Avatar, his forthcoming 3D film release.  In the intervening years, he has spent his time developing and promoting the technology to produce films in 3D.  He has declared that 3D is the future of movie making.  Because he had stopped making movies and seemed like he had turned into a crazy hermit, I just assumed these were crazy I'm King of The World hermit ramblings. But after seeing Coraline in 3D this weekend, I'm inclined to believe him.

You just called bullshit, right? 3D technology has been around since the 1950s, with the red-and-blue glasses, you say.  This fad seems to come up every 30 years, you say.  The 1980s saw a resurgence, and now here we are again, talking about 3D.  Its just a stupid gimmick that doesn't ad anything to the viewing experience other than Jaws leaping out of the screen... IN THREE-D!

Go see Coraline in 3D and tell me its still just a gimmick.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  In the meantime, let's talk about what has changed since the days of the red-and-blue glasses that gives 3D a chance to be the future of the movies.


The technology.  You perceive depth because you see in stereo - a left eye, a right eye.  The two images are processed in your brains into a three-dimensional space.  The basic idea behind 3D technology is that filmmakers need to get separate images into your right eye and your left eye, then let your brain sort it out.  In theory, it works.  In practice, its really kind of hard.  Having two images isn't enough.  Those images need to make sense when constructed into a 3D shape, or else it doesn't look right, and in some cases even causes headaches.

Digital technology is changing that, both on the filming end and the projection end.  In filming, computers can control the focus and angles of the cameras that capture each image to make sure that they will make sense when combined into a three-dimensional space.  Digital projection makes everything line up properly so the 3D image is crisp and clean. 

The rise of computer animation.  If you look at the slate of movies coming out in 3D this year, you'll notice that the bulk of them are computer animated.  This is not a coincidence.  Filming in 3D requires more equipment and expertise on site.  Computer animating in 3D requires some additional computing cycles to render the second image, but the increase in cost is minimal compared to the live-action process.

The home theater. Big screens, high definition, and surround sound systems make home theaters look as good (or in some cases better) than what is being projected at the movies these days. Combine this with the typical movie going experience these days ($3 for parking, $20 for tickets, $3 for a slushie, $4 for Twizzlers, not to mention the loud assholes and their crying babies) and it makes me wonder why I still go to theaters.  (The reason? A night that I go to the movies is a night I don't have to go to karaoke.)

But 3D is an experience that cannot be replicated at home.  But Jesse, you say.  I just watched Chuck in 3D on my TV at home, and it didn't look all that great.  And what about those Super Bowl ads in 3D?

Be quiet, nerd. It is not the same process, and therefore it doesn't look nearly as good as theater projection (it has to do with the fact that theaters have two projectors and your TV only has one).  If you had gone to see Coraline like I told you to, you would not have even brought that up.

Piracy.  If 3D was the only means of projecting a movie, then it would be the end of movie piracy as we know it.  Unless people would rather sit at home, watching a shaky hand held version of a movie that had double images. 

No more throwing things at the audience. So far, I have seen three movies using the new 3D process.  One of them, My Bloody Valentine 3D, was a throwback to the old style of 3D movies (the killer uses a pick axe on his victims - you can probably fill in the rest).

The other two, Bolt and Coraline, had very little, if any, of the "shit jumping out of the screen at you " gimmick. And even MBV3D was aggressively 3D in non-pick axe related scenes.  Look at this conversation - in 3D! Look at this guy driving down the road - IN 3D!!

Coraline is the first one that uses the third dimension in a way that really enhances the movie going experience beyond just marveling at the technology itself.  Like any good film, it uses the technology of the cinemas at its disposal (which in this case included 3D) to build a convincing reality that draws you in.  To call it a gimmick would be like calling color a gimmick, or special effects a gimmick, or Scarlet Johansson's breasts a gimmick. Either that, or I'm just getting used to it.  With the initial shock of "holy crap this is in 3D" gone, I can begin to appreciate what it adds to the movie experience.

The only downside? I already wear glasses.  Wearing 3D glasses on top of my glasses really sucks, but I still refuse to wear fucking contacts. Here is a business idea: prescription 3D glasses.  I'm serious.  If anyone wants to run with that I'm only asking a 5% commission.  That is a gold mine.