3-D Report: July

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Keep in mind Transformers: Dark of the Moon came out in June, so you will find my comments on it in the 3-D Report for June.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

One of the biggest blows to the 3-D genre occurred last year when Warner Brothers had Clash of the Titans hurriedly converted into the format. It was done far too quickly and as a result the 3-D was awful (also due to Warner Brothers' request for last minute editing, the rest of the movie was awful as well, but that is for another article). People paid to see Titans in 3-D, but after that people have been seeing movies in 2-D.

Amazingly, Warner Brothers learned from their mistakes. Only a few months from the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I, the studio took back the advertisements for that movie to be in 3-D, saying they did not think it should be converted in that time and they wanted all their focus to go into converting Part II.

It may have cost them money at first, but it was worth it (at least for the audience). Deathly Hallows 2 has the best 3-D for a 100% converted movie yet. The images are in perfect focus, the world has the right dimensions (meaning no "cardboard cut-out effects"), and the 3-D adds to the experience greatly without interrupting the story. This is one movie to see in the extra dimension.

Now, many people are going to complain that the image is too dark. Well, that is true, but its not because of the 3-D. Back in Prisoner of Azkaban (the third Harry Potter movie), Alfonso Cuaron took his turn directing the series. Not only was this by far the stupidest book (remember time-travel, everyone), but Cuaron decided the best way to convey the "darker tone" was to give the movie a darker tone. And by that, I mean he had his cinematographers digitally darken every single frame of the film, meaning you can't see a thing that is going on. Cuaron and his cinematographer--Michael Seresin--left the series after that movie, but future directors decided not to drastically change his look for the series. This means that for most people (especially those who are even mildly color-blind), the Harry Potter movies have some of the ugliest, depressing, and distracting cinematography of all time (I know some of them have gotten Best Cinematography Oscar nominations, but that is probably because 1) it took a lot of effort to make the movie look like that and 2) voters forgot that its originality was because everyone else knew it was a terrible idea). In short, the final Harry Potter film, while not quite as hideous as most of its predecessors, still is shot in tone of black and green. It looks like the affect of a poor 3-D conversion, but in fact every version of the picture looks like that because it is supposed to.

Captain America: The First Avenger

The 3-D in this is acceptable, but not fantastic. It does add depth to the image, and it does blur the background (to prevent headaches). However, in some cases the characters seem to not be in perfect tune with their surroundings. It is a very slight error in fully expanding the frames, but sometimes the characters stand out as having a not quite right look around the edges of them. It is very subtle, and most of the time you don't notice (or most of the time it is not there). This is often an issue for converted film, and Cap is not as bad as most of them (Green Lantern had it much worse). Still, it provides enough of a reason to strongly consider a 2-D viewing experience.

The Smurfs

Most of the problems with converted 3-D is that it is out of focus, but occasionally these pictures (and ones shot in 3-D, for that matter) have a problem of being over-focused. A person's eye puts the thing someone wants to look at in focus, and everything else is blurred because it is unimportant. A good camera is able to put everything in focus--and when the image is heavily altered through cinematography, this is worse. When a movie is in 3-D, it is absolutely imperative to blur the background. If this is not done (or not done well), the viewer has to work to distinguish what the important part of the picture is. They will get motion sickness, their eyes will get tired, and they will get a headache. I had this problem at Smurfs, and I think most people do to. The makers of well-made 3D movies like Tron: Legacy stress that it is mandatory for filmmakers to follow this rule. Realizing that their market is mostly kids and their parents, who aren't familiar with good 3-D and just want an extra gimmick, the studio behind The Smurfs doesn't bother to do it right. This is very thoughtless, since it will both make people hate the entire 3-D format (robbing other 3-D films of money), and it will make parents think that 3-D only works on children ( a common myth).

Do not watch The Smurfs in 3-D.

As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.