Monday, November 29, 2010


I think, for the right kind of movie, primarily action movies, 3D can be an appropriate choice. Although, it's certain, it’s not absolutely necessary. If the movie is compelling enough, it will draw us into its onscreen world, where the movie begins to take place, not just on screen, but in the viewers mind, as well. This is where the the movie going experience, is at its most compelling. I think it can be argued, to film a movie with equipment that produces the highest quality 3D, makes it easier for the movie maker, to produce a compelling movie. The 3D, tricking the mind into quickly entering a state of open receptivity.  The viewer, walks out of the theatre, believing he’s had an exceptional movie watching experience, but really, he’s just been flummoxed into thinking that, by the potent addition of 3D. A compelling story is preferable, to the whiz bang addition of 3D. Just ask the families, that once would gather around a radio and be enthralled by a story teller’s ability to transmit the listeners to another world.


  1. Agreed. I suppose visuals have their place, but a link to my imagination through a well-told story is more to my liking.

  2. 3D is something that I apply the Costco technology test to. If it's not big at Costco, the technology isn't "there" yet.