Anyone who’s discussed filmmaking with me knows how I loathe the films of Michael Bay and specifically his direction 9not to mention him as “King of Narcissists”).
But, at this year’s Showest, he counter punched the current hype of 3D. The new 3D technology, both in Giant Screen and regular theaters is definetly a huge improvement over the carboard red/blue glasses of yore. But a number of people, from Jeffrey Katzenburg to James Cameron believe 3D is the new “color” or “sound”.
I, and now Michael Bay, disagree. I did a some testing and research on 3D for “Outside In” which you can read here. While I see the new 3D here to stay and continue to get better, 2D has some huge advantages that 3D does not have and it’s not clear will ever have.
- 2D is cheaper, easier. Whenever 3D gets to where 2D was, 2D has already moved ahead.
- 3D has some fundamental issues with size, relative volume, vision differences in people, theater issues etc. that make many subjects at best surreal and at worst, silly. For animation, cartoons and cardboard action flicks, sure. For “Sense and Sensibility”, not now, maybe not ever.
- But most importantly, 2D is beautiful. There is a certain magic in flattening an image. It’s not better or worse than three dimensions, just different. “2D” art – painting, drawing has continued to flourish as has 3D art – scuplture, architecture etc.
So, while I continue to be a Bay-hater and have no plans to ever see another of his films, kudos to him for pointing out some of the obvious visual flaws in current 3D. James Cameron thinks that I, Bay and all the other skeptics are dead wrong as his new “Avatar” has 3D we’ve “not seen before”. I happen to really like and respect Cameron’s films (yes, including Titantic) – so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.