By LiquidPrince 66 Comments
That's what I think anyways. At this point in the life of those two things, nothing good has come out of them. Motion controls almost always feel like a tacked on gimmick, and Avatar which was the best example of 3D wasn't really that impressive on the 3D front in my opinion. I liked the movie, for many reasons, not one of those being the 3D. I think Michael Bay made an interesting point that summed up my opinion of those two things:
"I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process.... Right now, it looks like fake 3-D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you're thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say what they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn't going to be excellent, I don't want to do it. And it is my choice.... I'm used to having the A-team working on my films, and I'm going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3-D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I'm not."
Now don't start saying I hate Michael Bay, he sucks etc etc... because that wasn't my point. My point is that if you can't do something to perfection, then sometimes you shouldn't do it all. However here's my dilemma: every technology needs someone to pioneer it. While to me Avatar failed in the 3D respect, Cameron's attempt was very admirable. I guess I just don't want my movies to degrade in quality just to throw in some motion controls or 3D, so they can charge extra.