Is 3d a filmmaking tool or box office gimmick? {Part 2}

Case study Tron: Legacy

I saw Tron this weekend and the movie. The original Tron came out in 1982 and also starred Jeff Bridges. That movie was a moderate hit, but had groundbreaking visual effects for its time and gained a strong cult following. In this sequel, Sam Flynn,  (played by Garrett Hedlund) son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) looks into his father’s disappearance and finds himself trapped in the digital world his father created.

This bizarre world is visually stunning and the gladiatorial games look amazing. Although there is lots of eye candy in this one, it is less than groundbreaking. That’s pretty hard these days, especially after the bar being set so high by Avatar. The expectations were high on this one and I personally was hoping for a visual feast with lots of 3d seasonings. I was disappointed.

The movie had a somewhat plausible plot and fairly believable characters, for this type of movie. Now let’s get into the 3d and how it relates to storytelling. In a previous blog I discussed the concept of 3d as a storytelling tool. 3d adds one more element or tool to the filmmakers toolbox. It also adds more money to the producers pockets. So is it a storytelling tool or a box office gimmick, or both?

In this movie, I’ll have to say this was a box office gimmick from the producers point of view and a storytelling tool poorly used.  The 3d will sure to draw filmgoers in to the theaters. They expect a 3d thrill-ride and most will leave the theater disappointed in that regard. I must add, however that the friend I went to see the movie with, did enjoy the 3d. So maybe I’m getting very picky with the 3d, but so far the 3d enthusiasts I’ve talked to were also disappointed.

There was one major problem with this movie that didn’t lend itself to good 3d. It was very dark. Many 3d filmgoers already complain about how dark 3d movies are and this one is already dark in 2d, so the 3d probably made it even darker. What made the movie more problematic for 3d were the dark backgrounds.

Sometimes all you had were the neon lines (prominent in the movie’s style) as a visual reference for the 3d. I should also add that a good portion of the movie was shot in 2d and shown in 2d. All the scenes set in the real world were in 2d and the digital world scenes were in 3d. I guess the filmmakers were going for a Wizard of Oz concept here, or they were running short on time or money to make the whole movie in 3d. There was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie telling the audience to keep their 3d glasses on at all times, even in the 2d scenes. I would take them off in the scenes that were 2d.

As an avid 3d fan I have been recently caught up in several discussions with fellow 3d enthusiasts regarding this movie. The debate amongst us has been the use of 3d negative space (stuff coming out of the screen). This movie had little or no use of that. I don’t recall any shots where there was something breaking the screen plane. For that matter even the use of positive space (space behind the screen plane) was conservative.

At this stage of the game, 3d movies should still have at least a few 3d “wow” moments thrown in just to keep the audience happy. They are paying extra for the 3d experience after all. If the filmmakers want to use the 3d very conservatively, that’s their choice.  3d should be a primarily filmmaker’s storytelling tool. However, do we pay extra for great use of lighting or sound? No, we don’t, so the movie industry can’t have it both ways. If they want to promote 3d as the next great storytelling tool and not a novelty box office gimmick then treat it as such. Don’t charge extra or if you want to charge extra then make sure you include at least a few “thrill” moments.