EDITORIAL: DULL 3D DISAPPOINTS, DISTRACTS

EDITORIAL%3A+DULL+3D+DISAPPOINTS%2C+DISTRACTS

Malory Beverly

This student is disappointed with his 3D experience.

Evan Rapp, Content Manager

Converting two-dimensional films into so-called 3D “masterpieces” has proved profitable for the movie industry; Avatar earned nearly $3 million at the box office worldwide. This new trope for movie producers is an excellent business venture, proving successful at every turn with millions of people flocking in mobs and in droves to the theaters to shell out an extra $5 to witness and experience a gimmick, which must be powerfully impacting to cause numerous truly complicated and enchanting filming techniques to be cast to the side.

The art of manipulating the two-dimensional frame into three dimensions is astonishingly simple. Whereas previously the mind’s eye would use its inherent ability to absorb the projected 2D image as 3D (through the wonderful mental capability of “perception”), this photo manipulation removes the effort required of one’s mind to do that. Only an innovation most brilliant and groundbreaking would provide a service already found within one’s own mind. While a book might coax a mind to create an incredibly detailed image of a world real or not, a screen removes the effort of doing so, providing a calculated view into a world created by another; this photo manipulation of 3D works in the same manner, synthetically creating the third dimension.

Not only does 3D remove the necessity for the mind to exert itself to create that third dimension on a two-dimensional screen, it does so in a manner which calls the greatest attention to itself; like any great circus showman, extravagantly grandiose and pompously supine at the same time, it manages to become apparent in every moment of the film, obvious and jarring. Whereas a 2D movie might be projected into 3D in the mind’s subconscious, creating a realistic world out of an image on a screen, an artificially produced 3D movie commands attention, even reverting one’s interest in the film to the visual affects. Only such a distinct technique as 3D could divert one from the film to the effects in a most protuberant manner.

These special effects bring with them the exclusivity of a great club, with certain ramifications necessary for viewing. An anonymous junior said that “some people with differential vision and accommodating issues [with vision] can’t see 3D.” Only those with matched, ideal visual receptors can experience 3D, establishing it as an exclusive luxury.

While the device required to observe the 3D experience is often considered to be cumbersome, it has considerable merit as a tool for enhancing the visuals of the film. For instance, the polaroid lenses, in order to allow the wearer to observe the 3D effects, polarize light entering the viewer’s eyes; in other words, it reduces the intensity of the light, a glamorous achievement. Without the glasses, the screen might have been too bright, the colors too lively, and the world too vivid and vibrant; with the 3D glasses, the light is dimmed, in case the viewer was to bothered by the lively color contrast of the screen’s colors.

Senior Evan Murray said, “I don’t like wearing them over other glasses. The 3D glasses are uncomfortable and noticeable.”

The best achievement of the 3D innovation was the immediate and diffident manner in which previous film techniques used for decades were cast aside, rendered useless and hindering by the new invention. Previously, directors had to cautiously direct the viewer’s attention through the use of focus, lighting, and depth of field, now the whole screen itself is kept in focus at all times, creating a sharp depth of field always kept in focus. Now, these time-tested traditions of the film industry are obsolete, in its place rising a new device, designed to appeal to sensational minds of single focus.