Sunday, February 5, 2012


So I saw Underworld: Awakening in 3D last week. I haven't really been into this whole 3D movie craze, and I've occasionally wished it would die. An interesting thing happened when I saw Underworld, though. It felt really different. Something about the way the 3D was calibrated seemed deeper, like they'd turned the depth dial up to 100. And weirdly, it worked.

I think I've figured out what's annoyed me so much about the 3D trend: most movies just use 3D as a way of slightly altering the picture, giving you a tiny bit of depth. Objects that are miles away seem like they're a few feet behind the screen, and objects that are in the camera's face feel like they're a few feet in front. Underworld does something different, though. Scenery that's miles away actually looks miles away, while stuff that's close to the camera still stays comfortably close to the screen. What it does for the film is give the illusion that you're not staring at a movie; you're actually there. Peter Jackson recently said something similar about filming The Hobbit in 3D at 44 frames per second (twice the rate of normal films): that it's like "pulling back" the screen and looking directly into the film's world.

From now on, I really hope that more films go all-out with their 3D instead of watering it down. I'd actually like to see more 3D that has a real function.


  1. I definitely get what you mean. I'd like to see a movie that was the kind of 3D you talk about here. That might actually make me like it.


  2. Generally I hate 3D, but I'm trusting Peter Jackson to use it properly. And I really hate these re-releases of movies that weren't made in 3D (like Titanic) just to make money. Even Pixar (gulp) is doing it with Finding Nemo. And Roger Ebert said whole parts of Titanic are NOT in 3D. He was able to remove his glasses and watch the movie normally in parts.

  3. Pixar's 3D movies aren't up-converted, actually. They've gone back to the original film source and basically re-filmed them for 3D.