twooffour said:
I don't think it stands, because "artificially forcing a 3D simulation with multiple images and GOOFY glasses" sounds like a horribly biased and contemptful way of describing the simple fact of what's happening.
Somehow you think that stating the fact of the 3D effect in Avatar being an artificial illusion and pairing it up with manipulative assessments like "goofy glasses" will actually MAKE it sound goofy?
So yea, it's a simulation. An illusion. What's wrong about THAT in itself?
We all realize it's not an actual projected hologram (and I don't mean that kind of flat holograms that deceive you by having each pixel send slightly different signals to your eyes), the action still takes place on a flat screen. SO WHAT?
The "goofy glasses" still make you actually see things in 3D, by having your two eyes receive different images. This effect differs from an appeal to "natural interpretation", because even if you forget about it when watching 3D animation or actual footage (although I admit to even forgetting about it when watching 2D cartoons sometimes), you'll still see a FLAT IMAGE, no matter how many "shadowings" there are. You won't see a 3D image.
Which gives the "goofy glasses" an actual point and purpose. It's not redundant. And it's not "dumb".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And you're right, i'm unabashedly not a fan of 3d movies in general (although I did recently get to watch a 35mm 3D print of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was fantastic fun*). And come on, whether they work or not, you have to admit the glasses are goofy! They fit awkwardly, they look silly, they're goofy!
I did find the quotation from Nolan. You can read the rest of the ariticle here, but the bit I was thinking of follows.
"The truth is, I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3-D versus 2-D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three-dimensional. … You know, 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2-D movie a ’2-D movie’ is a little misleading"
*I was actually quite surprised at how well the classic red/blue effect worked. The newer 3d stuff isn't really much better from what I've seen (granted, I haven't seen Avatar). And while I'm generally not a fan of "3d" movies, I certainly make exception for the chance to see one of my favorite classic horror films in the way it was originally released!