Even with “Inception” still unseen, media and fans alike are hopefully positioning Christopher Nolan as both the artistic and commercial savior of the Hollywood blockbuster in this dreariest of summers. So his views on the lingering point of contention that is 3D strike me as more pertinent than most. And while lofty names from Scorsese to Herzog are boarding the bandwagon, it seems that Nolan — for the time being, at least — remains a sceptic.
Writing for the LA Times, Geoff Boucher details a Q&A with Nolan that he hosted this weekend, in which the director dwelt on the industry’s current favorite fad, and indirectly alluded to pressure from certain quarters to make the next “Batman” instalment in 3D. At this stage, however, he finds the technology lacking:
It’s all based on all the visual-effects technology, you know, that we’re currently most engaged in with match moving, so forth, and rendering 2-D imagery into a 3-D space. … On a technical level, it’s fascinating, but on an experiential level, I find the dimness of the image extremely alienating.
He continues:
[As for shooting in 3D] … [t]here are a lot of problems with it … the idea of shooting a whole film through a massive beam-splitter and so forth — there are enormous compromises. Post-conversion technologies probably, for me, are definitely the future, but really it is up to the audiences what they want to see and how they want to watch their films.
It’s with regard to this question of audience appetite that Nolan dangles the possibility of his working with the technology in the future. He admits that they experimented successfully with converting “Inception” into a 3D format, but that they “didn’t have time to do it to the standards that I would be happy with.” (Would that the directors of certain other titles rushed through the process were as picky — or allowed to be as picky.)
He’s understandably more reticent when talk turns to his third go-round with the Caped Crusader, but this carefully worded statement suggests the decision may not entirely be his to make:
Well, let me put it this way: There is no question if audiences want to watch films in stereoscopic imaging, that’s what the studios will be doing, and that’s what I’ll be doing … I’m certainly quite pleased with ‘Inception’ as presented — it’s very bright and very clear, so as the technology improves, those differences may change, and that is what I hope for.
Us too. Read the rest here.
Comments
9 responses to “Christopher Nolan speaks out on 3D”
The fact that there is even a 3D copy of Inception floating around frightens me. I hope it never sees the light of day. Audiences are increasingly becoming more and more wary of 3D, so hopefully by 2012 we can enjoy one last good 2d film before the apocalypse.
2D is way closer to how we actually see than 3D. This is because the use of it is, and always will be, selective. One character or background element popping out is not how i see.
2D forever man.
That would be a tremendously sad day if Nolan started making his movies in 3D. I really hope Inception does well in the box office so studios can realize that not every movie has to be made in 3D now in order to be successful.
I wish the first big 3D flop would hurry up.
“The truth is, I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3-D versus 2-D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three-dimensional. … You know, 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2-D movie a ‘2-D movie’ is a little misleading.”
I love that quote. He’s dead-on here, as he usually is.
I think 3D should be limited to animated features only.
There’s something that just doesn’t feel right with real life footage in 3D. I can’t put my finger on it, but I don’t like it.
On a different note:
Does any one know if the last Harry Potter films are still being distributed with post-conversion 3D? I certainly hope not.
How ironic that this drops on the same day Sasha Stone has a post on how much Scorsese is enamored of 3D.
Is there a better example of two directors’ careers going in opposite directions?
I hate 3-D so much and agree with Adam: the first flop NEEDS to arrive.
I agree with you guys, 3D is for movies like with special effects or for animated films.
I’ve read on another blog that there is a company that is about to convert videos from 2D to a 3D-without-glasses. You can see some samples (some of them are pretty impressive) on Livestation (http://www.livestation.com/videos). Take a look!