worth noting his attitude to 3d.

These guys are moving from the music video world into feature films, and are focusing on sci fi at present.

Here's the teaser....please pass on to friends etc.

The first stealth fighter bomber, the f117, was shaped due to the fact that in the 1970s computers could only do radar calculations on two dimensions, forcing a faceted, hard angle design. This resulted in several effects, first they were referred to in a male context such as "Darth Vader's" fighter. Second the air force requested that they be painted black. The designers had tested the best night fighter camouflage which is a sort of soft molted pattern, not pure black. In other words the technically correct colour scheme failed to match the aircraft's psychological impression.

This aircraft has been used in every conflict since its release, as an extension of American war policy. Yet in all reality this is a compromised weapons system as several have been shot down and their invincibility is more to do with the over all American air superiority.

Currently there is a new aircraft in service called the F22 raptor which is a update of the earlier stealth system, including compound curves, over horizon missile targeting etc. Yet most people couldn't identify it in a lineup of standard planes of the last thirty years. It had gained in performance, yet lost in its psychological effect. There was no request to paint it anything other then drab gray. Its also worth noting that its the last of the maned aircraft to be adopted by the air force as its begins to robotize. The f117 was used as a sort of tip of the spear, long after its real world fighting ability has passed, where as the f22 seems to be the last great fighter before the march of the robots.

Its also interesting to look earlier to WWII and the project build by the Horton brothers, the Ho229 an all wing fighter bomber. This early incarnation was attempting to be stealthy and use material that that didn't strain the war effort, like wood. This aircraft would also be female, its in a situation where power is past, its futuristic, curved etc. But it still has a lethal look to it, as both gender types can. This aircraft inspires a almost fetishistic reverence despite never getting past testing and crashing due to a flame out.

Another example would be two periods of churches, the first around the time of the early Christians, Byzantine, pre-crusades, mostly western Europe. During the dark ages architecture techniques such as roman arches are lost, resulting in small box like churches, build on the worse shape for support you can have in nature, the square. These structures have a bunker like appearance.

This style of building was smaller and less lofty then roman or Greek buildings made centuries earlier. But in opposition to this design the church is basically one entity, and is still expanding. Its power is absolute and mostly unquestioned, where it encounters resistance it simply destroys or kills. Centuries later after conflict with Muslim cultures it reintroduces knowledge lost such as the classic works of early Greeks philosophers, methods of construction such as the arch and large dome. in areas where Muslims hadconqueredbut had been pushed back such as Spain they left examples of structures, many to this day, which lead to a greater understanding of what could be done in terms of form and scale.

While this is being studied there is great political and religious upheaval, the church fractures in to Catholic and Protestant, with the usual unending bloodshed. The church is no longer the center of the universe both literally and figuratively. Yet this is the period of the finest European cathedrals such as Notre Dame or Exeter cathedral.

There incredible soaring arches, curved system of external weight distribution on buttresses allow a grace of form in European design unmatched to this day while the political entity of the church was failing.

Now to use a sci fi concept to illustrate this, this may have been thought out or more likely came organically due to this concept's archetypal effect.

The BORG: In their first incarnation they were suppose to be androgynous yet seemed more like a mechanical SS who travel space in one of the best star trek icons, a massive cube, on end, a square.

Now in "Star Trek First Contact" they introduce the Borg queen who during her escape from the cube uses a spherical ship. The square has become the circle with the introduction of the female queen.

Another great historical example would be the first battle of the ironclads, Monitor and Merrimack. I can't think of a better real world example of this design principal in action.

One ship, a floating bunker box ram vs a un-seaworthy but maneuverable round turret on a slab. Another sci fi illustration of this would be the Return of the Jedi ships in the form of the evil empires hard angled star destroyer vs the good guys bubbly mon calamari capital ships.

And lastly to really drive it home heres the best example of the last few years in the magical pixar film WALL-E, seen her with EVE. There machines but ill bet you can tell which one is male and which one is female?

The next area I want to cover is the idea of a iconic silhouette, which combined with the gender idea can produce great design. In my opinion detail will add a scale and if done correctly, realism, but in terms of story and character the silhouette and gender concept will have the greatest cinematic impact. I think this is one of the reasons that despite years of CGI ships, top whatever lists have a larger amount of miniatures then CGI ships even if you adjust percentage for the amount of years. Click here for a top 75 list....

The lack of real world forces and ability to add detail at will has lead to a sort of mushy design look despite the technical ability of the concept artists. You see this in comics as well with hyper detail art with no sense of depth or tonal range. I'm guilty as much as any one, but I've tried to be more conscious of this and I'm thinking more in terms of a general criticism.

WRONG!So in general the idea here is to create a simple shape, pure geometry that in its outline speaks volumes. For example take a cross shape, upright would be a a hospital/research ship,[Think planet of the apes, remake] on angle the X has a aggressive shape ideal for a gun ship. [really? You can't figure that one out? sigh, X wing.] So without breaking down every shape this is more about thinking about the character of the object in relation to its shape, by defining it then finding its ideal geometry. Another example is a triangle or pyramid, which can be used for ancient structures, remove the top portion of the pyramid and it becomes both more ominous, such as bunkers, to futuristic, like the computer structure in Nassicca, Captain power villain lord dread pyramid, the Tryrell building in Blade Runner to the SKYNET battle building.The idea is to create a iconic image in the audience with even a quick viewing. The intent and reason for a object should be visual and the simpler that is done the more effective.

This will seem silly but think of the comedic character "Mr Bean" and his vehicle of choice, which is a English mini. Now think what it would say if he drove an army truck or a bankers Mercedes.

 Its interesting to note that one of the most consistent criticisms against the first transformer movie in design was that it was impossible to tell the Autobot's from the Decepticon's at distance or in a quick view with out seeing their logo's. Yet as you can see there's a huge amount of detail, but it adds nothing really to story, nor recognition of who's who.

Without colour or in silhouette these two are almost identical. Now compare that to these designs.

Not only can you tell them apart if shown to some one who had not seen the movie and ask them to identify say good from evil they would have no problem doing so in seeing even just a silhouette.

My last concept is something I'm calling the politics of materials, this is more a term for how an objects appearance could add thematic, political or character elements.

Case studies could be the effect of having gold coverings over a buildings walls, what would that say about its inhabitants?

Or what effect does chroming a surface have? Does it become futuristic or fascist?

Think about Thx 1138 cops, any movie of riot cops with there mirror face plates to the mirrored sunglasses of the scary southern sheriff in cool hand Luke, or even Cobra Commander. To men in black two with the chrome mini robot which has both of these properties.

On the opposite end of this is the convention that any primitive or in a sense space hippies in say star trek well inevitability be in raw or rough fabric with basic geometric colour patterns. Yet in most so called primitive cultures that have past the stone age use complex weaves, varied colours, metals etc.

What is also interesting is how different periods from say ancient roman to french aristocratic in the 18th century vs modern 20th century vary in colour theory and fabric choice. For example bright colours and a leopard skin would fit perfectly in to a wealthy roman senators wardrobe but would to our eyes be the wardrobe of say a white trash shopper at Walmart. We would tend to think of darker business suits as the wardrobe of some one rich and powerful today yet would be the colours of dour pilgrims or tradesmen in the 17th century.

While this is only a gloss over of ideas I hope I've illustrated my points enough to make some of these theories useful or to at lest start a discussion.

These films have the end of the world or something awful happening such as nuclear war which may or may not be solved, a portion try to end on some sort of high note. This can be as vague as the last shot in THX1138 of a lone man’s silhouette against a burning sky, what kind of world is he free in now? list of the so called best 50 dystopian films click here....

But less talked about is the utopian film which has some over lapping with its evil twin genre. Both can have calamitous events which seem to be of an epic scale yet there is a difference in their philosophical intent.

One of the most interesting aspects is the utopian movements at the start of the 20th century which inspired books and movies,and “hollywood” reality on social ideas.

At the end of the nineteenth century several events caused a synthesis of experimental ideas and technology which, combined by the awful scourge of WW I was to make the name of a tiny area of California synonyms with films.

In New York, a group of immigrants, Jews and outsiders had been using this raw new commercial art form but were constantly under the gun from the inventor cad Thomas Edison. He had hoped that between anti Semitism and his iron control of the film patents he would emerge as the sole studio in America. To aid in this he out right stole the works of Georges Méliès, hired thugs to attack enemy studios so in short order the other film makers fled west for greener pastures. Hollywood had been an endless series of orange groves and conservative farmers, now secret film companies sprung up among the trees and near San Diego a Theosophy site called Loma land had been constructed. This group was one of the best examples of the various philosophical, religious and other orders that begin in this state, finding the land itself conducive to new ideas and odd concepts

Theosophical Societies colony of Lomoland is sadly no more; there occult studies combined workings of various arts from furniture to printing, all the way to theatre troupes. There art work style was part of a larger movement now referred to as the ARTS and CRAFT movement, of which the famous Frank Lloyd Wright was one of its best. The site itself was beautiful, full of neo classical buildings with beautiful glass domes, Greek amphitheaters, uniformed followers and its purple monarch Katherine Tingley who ruled in full costume. You could walk the grounds with music coming from garden houses, children running dressed in fairy costume and see an outdoor art class in session.  Its quality of education was award winning and much admired.

Through its gates comes L. Frank Baum the writer of the Oz books whose setting of the emerald city owes more to this strange occult order then anyone knows. The description of Oz match the Lomaland site complete with multi light beacon on its central building, its similarity only ends at the scale of the fantasy city.

These beloved books are written into scripts from their earliest publishing dates with one attempt in 1925 to put it on film. It starred a young Oliver Hardy but had major departures from the book and was Oz really in name only. So it’s not until 1939 that they finally becoming the classic second colour film of MGM.

During this genesis of Hollywood there was a spirit of potential and freedom that appealed to those of different class, sexual orientation, race, immigrant and outsider. The changes that seemed possible in the 20th century had not gone through the cauldron and been shattered. Optimism feed by the by the rise of socialism, occultism and science seemed boundless, with each trying to lay claim to full human potential. An interesting idea to think about is that the title of silent film is a gross inaccuracy. At worst there would be a organ accompaniment, or at the best premiere’s full orchestra adding deeper emotion to the action on screen. But the story is told more by the actions on screen with a few needed title cards. When you watch movies of this period you have to watch them, they’re not like a lot of modern movie which are radio plays with pictures and can be casually viewed. They demand your full attention. If you've ever had the chance to see any of these films with live music you will begin to see how powerful they where, and far from silent.

During these early days of film one of the most famous masters of this new medium, DW Griffith made up his method for running a film set, which we still use today. He also had his ideas of what films could do, he realized that with pantomime and music there was a universal language in the so called silent film. This would allow the human race to return to a pre tower of Babel period, in which both the primal and modern coexisted with a common tongue worldwide to fix the schism of humanity.He also started Hollywood’s future obsession with youth but for the idea that youth was a universal experience in that everyone had been young at one time.

He believed that film would replace history lessons as objective reality, yet his first attempt at this the film “Birth of a nation” was deemed even when it came out as a racist mess. It was as far from an objective depiction of the civil war as could be mastered, yet what adds to the tragedy of it was the technical skill and that it was the first feature length movie. Think of Leni Riefenstahl and her "Triumph of the will" in a similar light.

In a way he was correct again, in that historical events shown on film are hard to shake, they become your perception of those events. They can be historical distorting as old westerns with injun attacks to something like Cate-Blanchett as Elizabeth the first. Both he and Warhol have put the idea forward that we will live in a world where if a event is not recorded it did not happen so how it is depicted is even more powerful and have real world impact. Read up on what happened with "Passion of Christ" for a great example.

Many of the studio heads who were Jews had fled other countries for America. Despite the American anti Semitism found ways to thrive. Some had started as gangsters selling drugs and had found their way into the film showing and then movie making almost by accident. But like all oppressed people sought to be seen as normal business men, pillars of the community. They know that under the skin of the society deep prejudice may lay dormant but could come out with the wrong conditions. By the 1920s those very conditions were rising in Europe with Germany moving to the right with the Nazi party rising as a reaction to the Russian revolution. These early moguls where denied entry to eastern New York based awards shows so they made their own, and were determined that it would out shine any other picture awards. Thus the Oscars were born.

For the next twenty years they began to show America an idea of what it could be. The emerging American dream which we may look at now as white centric, but was showing a style of life which was safe, clean and had a friendly cop on every corner. This image which right winger‘s today wax nostalgic over was a creation of the repressed dreams of Jew’s who had fled violent pogrom’s in places like Russia seeking a quiet suburban dream.

This had become so much a part of the American ideal that by WWII America was facing a enemy that was in some ways more similar in racial intent but on the surface America was starting to see itself as something else, and this helped motivate its entry into the war. Remember that even thought slavery had been abolished about eighty years before America was basically an Apartheid state into the 1960's.

One of the best film makers during this period was Frank Capra who had in 1937 depicted the mythological city of Shangri-La in the epic “Lost Horizon”. The film is about a group of plane crash survivors who end up in this mythical city and one by one succumb to its perfect charm. The location is itself one of the most incredible sets ever put on film and I highly recommend this movie. Again hints of that same architecture of curves and flowing lines, a repeating subconscious city.

His ideal was one of calm and to see the natural world and be linked with its rhythms, almost a precursor to the yoga ideals of the 1960s. The idea that humans, who have enough to eat, drink, clean air, and clean water, will become aware of greater purpose, but at the time this was just seen as the now great evil of soviet communism and the movie suffered strange cuts which diluted the message.

 click here for info on the film....

By the 1970s the cynical world view seemed to have taken hold, and the dystopian films start to come out with "Clockwork Orange" timing. Films such as “Silent Running” showed the death of nature, in the end only a tiny dome with plants obits Saturn. "Zardoz" with its wizard of OZ connection and Sean Connery in a diaper depicted the nightmare of a perfect society wishing to die or “Logans Run” which depicts a city designed to preserve humanity by a constant rebirth and culling of its population at age 30. Personally I think it was more a metaphor of the 1960's idea not to trust anyone over 30… But one of the common themes was the idea of a utopia gone wrong, that it wasn’t even possible or safe to dream any more.

Even today the ghosts of these ideals and places shows up in films, it’s no accident that in the “Phantom Menace” planet of Naboo looks like it does, nor its near paradise social concept of a costumed queen and artist based craft world. On route between Skywalker ranch and San Francisco is a series of buildings made by one of the best students of the utopian ideals of the arts and crafts movement which echo the earlier Lomoland. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Marin civic center seems to bridge the fantasy of Star Wars to Oz to that earlier colony ruled by its costumed queen.

In a way Star Trek has carried the ancient idea of fallen perfection, only instead of seeing our society as fallen it reversed it saying we were moving towards a perfect society, this is in a way echoing Marxist theory of social inevitability.

In “Star Trek next generation” the final missing piece of the puzzle was added in the form of the replicator, which as a philosophical idea is worth volumes for thinking. It’s worth asking as we head towards that ability what would have value? If I can copy anything what is that object worth, such as the Mona Lisa?

On various star ships their interests in an object is purely atheistically motivated, the old books they owned could have been made ten minutes before, it’s a choice of antiquing them for the emotional value. In Star Trek it’s the intelligence, strengths and abilities of a person rather than arbitrary objects such as gold that are their personal value. What I found interesting was the more topical and dark "trek" became the greater the audience loss. While for various reasons I’m not a fan of the really well done current redo of “Star Trek” it was great to see it returning to its earlier ideals. I think this, as well as the polish that JJ Abrams gave it accounts for its success.

And we’re seeing more and more films of an event, non narrative, visual, and effects drive which work for the money machine side of Hollywood by raking in the cash, but its appeal is closer to the silent era. Plot is not needed in a movie about giant stompy robots, it works on a combination of music image, and effects, that can be understood by anyone. Films are again becoming Griffith’s universal language.

But as for utopia's themselves we have only to look at the current highest grossing movie currently playing. Avatar is a simple story but works on the primal with the most modern of CGI created alien worlds and is selling as well in Thailand as LA. It's also no accident that it depicts a modern version of a nature utopia at a time we are struggling to deal with this issue in the real world. Perhaps more then ever we want and need to start dreaming again.

Epic and Scarlet will also becoming standard issue hopefully this year. They appear to be nearing the end of their development cycle and Epic X will start to be taken by early adapters. Scarlet, I think in some way for the cost is looking like a dud. If they had released the fixed lens body in say late 2008 early 2009 for three grand it might have flown but I think it’s now facing a huge opponent in the HDDSLR area and as I will go into later there will be something superior very soon. While a great piece of gear, having gone through the rigors of renting the RED ONE I would hate to be attempting to rent Scarlet against its far cheaper competitors.

Epic, will on the other hand move into place as a standard film system, its cost to quality is far too high for even the most hardened of film producers. DOPs, directors to not take advantage of. When we first got the RED I was part of a discussion on what impact RED ONE would have, one of the points I made was I thought that within a short time owning a camera package would be standard for DOPs, Operators etc that in a way it’s almost expected that there will be a camera on set with little to no impact on cost. IE if you want the job as DOP you would have to bring the camera, and soon there will be little to no compensation for that service. We are very near that threshold once the Epic becomes standard about one year into its operation this will be common up to the Epic level. Right now RED ONE rental costs have dropped dramatically so that it seems rental shops are almost including the camera body, and it’s about accessories and lenses. For a normal individual this is a huge expense to keep up with and I don’t envy someone trying to go this route without some sort of free money, large bank roll,  from family etc. Using bank credit or credit cards in this current climate will be dangerous and unadvisable. With the Epic there will be a increase in both camera cost and rental cost and it will make any un-upgraded RED ONE give off a five day fish smell. I think REDs biggest contribution was in just getting things moving again. After George Lucas paid for the development of the f900/f950 camera from Sony there was a stagnation of several years before we saw the current multi level options today. The break was with the release of the Red One its specs vs. price point seemed insane at the time, some people even charged that Red was some kind of online scam . Once it became clear that this level was possible at this price and level it began to move much faster. The Digital still sensor caught up to film and offered another route into this problem, if you could just get enough bandwidth for movie mode. Most digital still cameras have had some sort of movie mode it’s just became obvious what that could do in the last 18 months mostly due to one camera... the mighty canon 5dmkII.

With every new RED Scarlet update Canon has keep pace with software updates to move their camera closer to what filmmakers in general want.  Exposure control, 24p etc are all after release add-on’s. This camera has a larger sensor and image quality equal to that first gen HD film camera that Lucas shot Star Wars episode II on so the issues now are about better data rates to improve or avoid compression.

I feel the general usage will be on the high end for film features/videos etc will use Epic x or similar and the rest of the territory will be a wild west of various HDDSLR cameras with several top makers. Canon has emerged out of the pack covering the high end still/low light video on the 1d mkIV to its workhorse 5d mkII, and for lower range the excellent 2/3 chip 7D to its weird awesome twin, the entry level 550d at under nine hundred dollars. They literally have a camera for every level and need covering a huge spread.

The amount of experimentation going on with these and similar HDDSLRs is incredible, the diversity of topics from DIY rigs to software hacks on the 5dmkII alone is staggering. Lens choices and experimentation is getting broader.

link here for crazy canon 5dmkII software hack to add some awesome features..

crazy HDDSLR camera rig....

 Back to our future release line, we’ve seen nothing yet from Nikon,[im looking at you pat!] as I think they didn’t see this coming in terms of the impact on both stills and movie. So they could put out a camera that is a serious contender very easily in there next release. [Any rumors or links?]

 There have been other attempts such as the blue cam with the sparta sensor to create the last piece between epic level and the mid level which is variable rates say 1 to 120, 444 colour space, 35mm full frame, all under six grand last year. But it seems to have vanished this year....

And this is what I think will be the biggest surprise this year, a camera that does just that for say three grand, with some strange options that will come to have a massive effect.

Most HDDSLRs have the ability to use auto focus in stills mode so what's to stop a follow focus system to be built in? Canon could add this feature and sell the wire/wireless unit as an option.  There are some great DIY stuff coming out showing early atempts at digital wireless FF systems like this one using a Wii controller.How long before thats inside the camera with a touch screen focus zone system?

I could see a hardware hack to get data off faster becoming more common to break the internal bottleneck of a camera by adding a external drive and interface.

If you can get a camera to shot around 75 FPS that would give you a possible bracketed 3 level exposure for movie footage as well as still. At this point I’m looking very carefully for what’s happening in stills as movie modes are right behind.

While this may be a cheesy effect HDRI pictures can be used beautifully or more likely would allow balancing in post of extreme light contrasts to be evened out.

Another area is the use of time lapse; one in particular really struck me, which was this scene break sequences for the movie “ghost town”. You can read more in-depth here..article on time lapse in "ghost town". But using a still camera and laptop then moving into some CGI post work they were able to make what would have been physically and cost wise far too hard a shot to do for real or even as full CGI. A example of an all CGI version which would no longer be possible to do was the shot in "Zodiac" of the tower going up which was being built in the 1970's. But this shot was super expensive. But similar style shots with a little imagination could be done in this hybrid method.

great clip of timelaspe 3d move

great clip of timelaspe 3d move

Getting backround plates from exotic location will become much easier, HDRI enviroments or something like a location lighting sample could be done on a single camera.

There should be a sort of 3d camera scanner in which you could in essence take a series of stills until the camera told you it had acquired the structure. You could then take out of the camera a compiled image model or projection map model. This will allow you to sample an environment for later integration with composited CGI or actors.

The idea that the camera is a cost to a film budget. We’re past the point where you really need to think about having a useable camera to film something so it’s going to be about what’s in front of the camera, in both unique looks, to getting better performance out of actors for entry level film work. Start to think of cameras like paint brushes in that any one can get one, but its how you use it that adds style, art, value etc. 3D will continue to be developed but we will see where that leads. {See this entry on that}The problem in the hardware area is that essentially you need two cameras thus a cost doubling. Experiments such as this Panasonic may offer a solution.

One possibility I think is to use the massive scale of 5k cameras like the EPICs 5k frame to get this down to just two lens plus adaptor and camera. You have the 3d rig in front consisting of two lens whose footage is merged and covers 2.5 k each top and bottom on the RED EPIC frame. Convergence and separation are motor driven as well for ease of use. Later software would extract the two plates from each frame and recompile them in a 3d or dual movie file format. I suspect a merging of single body 3d cameras, focus,convergence, separation systems and post 3d file formats. The idea is to get 3d as similar to 2d as fast as possible in the mechanics of its work flow and crew use. [update i was given a link for a similar idea. wow i wrote it and like an hour later it was real...]

These are my first thoughts on this coming year any comments or feedback welcome…

Update

Sorry gramps couldn't hear you over my loud rap video shot on RED ONE.I forgot the new ARRI digital camera which I’m sure is super awesome but I don’t think it will have much in the way of new market penetration nor any overall impact. The users of the d21 and other ARRI systems will I’m sure continue to work on that system. But sadly its impact in the way RED is like a apple product and has a almost religious fallowing is nonexistent. ARRI is like something your grandpa would use. Doesn’t mean it’s not good it’s just got a limited appeal and at that price point little chance we will use, let alone touch one. So I’m sure these cameras will be used well by various shows, movies etc but will have little to no impact on the directions where talking about.

SI 3d interface, in the time you took to look its became outdated... Another company to fall off the apple cart is SI who have, correction, had a cutting edge camera have shown nothing new except a expensive 3d camera control software [10g a camera thanks can you make it run on one camera for me?] which looks like something that has a shelve life of five months if that. As I stated above this sort of interface is going to become standard and will be a non issue by year’s end. SI has made me sad since I first saw them nad used it. It came out before RED, had better picture image and amazing features in the interface, which in one generation red absorbed and is the interface on both Scarlet and Epic. I almost wanted to grab them by the collar and shake them “wake up, you have a good project sell it you fuckers”.

meanwhile If red farts everyone, even people who hate red, know it. Update II

amazing shootout with the hddslr,film etc. Films is of course the highest in quality but check out the 5d and 7d much closer then people realize.

link click here...

Firstly it’s distracting, the glasses are here to stay for a while and wearing them is still strange. The image still can have a card like or layered flat look even on “Avatar” in an IMAX theatre. If you say, well that going to end with 3D screens and TV’s etc fine i'll believe that when I see it as a mass item and not before.

Second, this also affects story. Already there a multitude of tools and techniques to get your audience to feel a specific emotion or to have the view forced i.e. direct the eye to information you need them to see. This was the second main difference between film and theatre at the beginning of last century. The first was that it could be copied and any one seeing it was seeing the performance that had been made perfect once, not as in a theatre on a good or bad night, a very different version. But second to that was the fact that you could change the view in that someone watching could clearly see that X was on the table, or see emotions directly inside the eyes of an actor. This is one of the reasons Depth of field has remained a dominate value of film, which is not really how we see which in some ways is closer to Citizen Kane’s deep focus photography. Now add the tools of music, colour, set design, costumes on and on.  It’s hard enough to get that to work in concert. Now add on top of that depth? So far I’ve seen it adds a visceral thrill to a movie but even in the hands of a master visual creator like James Cameron it’s little more than a gimmick.

I don’t fear “Avatar” , this was a simple story told with astonishing imagery, but every unskilled goon in Hollywood is seeing dollar signs next to 3D not realizing that their stampede of crap is what will do it in again.

 If anything it sort of pulls you out of the movie, weirdly a sort of fourth wall break down. I think watching a movie is like looking at a painting in the fact it's flat is part of the mental set up to prepare your mind. Remember when movies came out they were competing against theatre and the very 3d tricks of vaudeville. Yet they became the dominate art form of the 20th century. Cameras have shown us horrors and beauty both real and faked in a 2D form. Do you think any of the shots of Auschwitz would have more power if they were in 3D?

Or AnnieLeibovitz’s John Lennon pictures in 3D would reveal something deeper then what she captured?



So you want a dimensional revolution? well you can count me oooout!

I’ve seen some real nuclear blasts that were recorded in 3D full colour from the fifties and they seemed sort of silly, in that it loses some of the abstract power of the image when it looks like cotton balls in 3d. Scale seemed to diminish. You get caught up in the shape rather then what it means or the visual fury of the image.

Third, loss of depth allows the other tools to shine; music, set design and colour have more importance. Movies like drawings work best when the artist uses known ideas of colour and what not to show become as important as what to show.I could see someone doing a sort of dimensional “Pleasantville” that as the town’s people change they would slowly become 3D. But again that’s sort of a gimmick. And the problem with using a gimmick in film is there like magic bullets, you have a limited number before audiences become immune to its effect and rather than adding a new image become a thing to point out and lose your emersion in the story. For a great example of this think of “bullet time” in the “Matrix “movies. This effect showed up in the nineties in commercials such as a Gap ad with time frozen dancers and was astonishing. Then its first serious use  was in the “Matrix”. That first time warp and movement of Trinities frozen kick really said more to sell the fact you where in an artificial world than anything else.

But repeat this even with grander but similar versions that are not really moving the story in a culture where this imagery is everywhere from ads to comedies like scary movie it has little to no impact. If they had used it occasionally to remind us where we were, fine. If the movies had used something else to show that the virtual world was breaking down or that it was artificial and normal rules didn’t apply this could have been great. But to solely rely on an effect that had been done to the edge of death it becomes boring. Add a dull pointless endless religious babble on top and you have something truly awful in the second and third matrix movies.

And I think this is the event horizon we stand at now for 3D. We’ve seen one of  the best sci fi film maker in the world throw his weight at it with 200 plus million dollars to get a thin at best movie. “Titanic” caused a similar flood of crap after it, like “Pearl Harbor” etc yet it still stands a singular decent version of that epic scale romance. “Avatar” will have a similar life.

I think there will be some 3D to stay as it makes sense for rendering 3D animation, the cost of the second eye is minimal. But even in that did Pixar’s “UP” really gain a whole lot by being 3D? It was a great movie, in that it used story, framing, music, actors to create great depth of feeling before even adding depth of dimension. It was a great ice cream sundae with an added cherry on top. I couldn’t tell you one memory of something dimensional from it but I can recall the opening 20 minutes vividly and the emotional effect it had on me.

One of the few areas I found it added to was in stop motion movies which are in essence dolls and models which we already think of as dimensional objects. The 3D adds to giving life to these puppets and was used to incredible effect in “Coraline”. Another seems to be the upcoming "Tron Legacy" which like “Matrix” depicts a digital world where physics and energy break down in unnatural ways. Yet adding 3D to this i think will work very successfully in that because it’s artificial the weirdness of depth will add to this oddness and overall feel. I think “Tron” could be a solid story but it almost don’t matter in that like the first one it’s the strangeness of the world that’s more interesting to us. It’s a technological magical fairy realm. This movie also uses digital effects in a way that could be unleashed, lack of gravity, cameras moves beyond filmable constraint,light from any source etc. What in a normal movie would work against it works for this movie. For me the irony is that because it’s in essence an artificial world the sense of dimension will heighten that.

Fourth, third dimension as a “sense”. It’s not like sound or image which are directly a sense. It’s a side effect or added effect to our vision. We’ve seen this with sound in that for all the awesomeness of 5.1 or 7.1 in almost every test of an average person they could not tell the difference on 95 percent of the movie. Adding to this is the fact that how you perceive dimension alters with circumstance brings more problems. For example when you are in a knife fight your vision in a sense will narrow, the position of the knife to you will be important but we see a flatter version of reality with an emphasis on movement. So this means that if you shot an action scene and have standard dimension it works against what every other element is trying to do. We also need to be aware of what a story may require and what an image fashion is at the time. By this the fights in “Bourne Identity” were to immerse you into the confusion of a close fight. But now that style is everywhere, and again in a lot of context’s working against your story. Watch say “Full metal jacket” and in the battles you know where things are in relations to other things such as where the enemy is even if to the soldiers it’s a mystery. This is a subtle but very powerful effect on your story in that if an audience has the spatial information to feed that part of our brains that requires that info so we can concentrate on the rest of the elements without interruption. Now think of average “Transformers the movie” fight in the first movie. Without getting into the asinine quality of the story I want to use two scenes to illustrate this.

The fight at the end of the film vs. the fight between Optimus Prime and the rollerblading Decepticon. In the second example where they are is clear, the camera heightens this by using wide angle lens showing the villains entrance to give him mass, done in a slight up shot to give menace. As the two are posed to clash it switches to a long lens, slow motion and a few seconds of quieter sound to add tension to the coming clash. Once they hit its close up melee of smashing forms, crashing sounds etc. Compare this to the end of the movie fight. This sequence is a mess of problems related to the placement of one side to the other. While in a shot by shot viewing each is fine, placed together in order creates confusion. They do not add up to a clearer image or do what great scenes can do which is give you two shots but the way they go together creates a third shot in your mind. If the computer that is your brain starts to use thinking cycles to try and develop its sense of location, and this occurs basically subconsciously, so even if you think the robot flipping over in slow motion is the most awesome thing you have ever seen, your brain is trying to figure out where this event is in relation to other events. So its pulling you out and doesn’t have any real resonates.

What I’m trying to illustrate here is how hard it is with even well understood tools to achieve the desired effect on the audiences. Now adding an aspect of sight we use for very specific information if not done correct will have the diametrically opposite effect.

We have seen that when sound was introduced it created horrible problems for movies yet due to the fact this is another full sense it added to movies enough to survive its infancy. There had been attempts to add colour before it succeed but had failed due to poor quality and cost. Colour was delayed again from full implementation due to WWII so when it was fully introduced it was of a calibre and interesting effect that warranted its survival.  Plus it didn’t take away from a movie, if you converted a colour movie back in to black and white they would have been of similar effect in every other term.

3d on the other hand has been a lesson in failure. It’s been introduced since its original inception several times over the years yet never gained any traction due to the fact it was hard on the eyes and simply a one trick gimmick. Its post work flow will add layers of cost to already fragile budgets, destroy most camera tricks that use the lack of dimension to work, insane post correction problems that will add nothing to story but stop a movie dead if left unfixed. Should film makers be looking at pushing envelopes? Sure but that’s not the total of films expression and direction of exploration. And it’s not likely Cameron’s is prepared to push in other areas beside effects. Will he add anal sex into his next sci fi movie as that would be envelope pushing as well, but somehow I doubt we will see that any time soon.

The sales pitch has focused on the eye pain part claiming that this is over. But I hope I’ve illustrated that even if that’s the case it’s still not going to fly. I think of 3D similarly to video phones in a technology that capture our imagination but at some point doesn’t really fit.

And time will prove this one way or another, 3D‘s appeal to movies is in the ride movies, which are a subpar form of the action movie. An action movie to be a good movie should still have story and characters you care about.  A movie that has the full range needed to be a true movie will not need the add bonus of depth as in if it’s good it doesn’t need it. While a movie with little or none of these values will be desperate to add something to the marquee to add value or interest.They claim that 3D will become as common as sound yet in reality if that happens there current cash cow will die. So for now its thrill rides with out feeling for the near future of this medium. Thus most 3D fare will leave you feeling emotionally flat.