Do You Want to Watch Precious in 3D? Martin Scorsese Does!
by Alex Billington
March 3, 2010
I don't think there was anyone watching Shutter Island this weekend who thought to themselves "I wish this was in 3D." In fact, there probably were some people, and that's the problem. I've begun to slowly accept and appreciate 3D when used properly (e.g. Avatar, Coraline, Tron Legacy) and used in moderation, as in not for every last movie. But with interest in 3D picking up again, that concern is becoming a reality. "If Coraline' was and Up was a subtle version of what you'd expect for 3-D, why couldn't a traditional drama work just as well?" director Chris Columbus asks in an AP article on 3D. He's not the only one they talk to!
The most interesting quote of the article comes from Shutter Island director and master filmmaker Martin Scorsese, who pitches in the opening paragraph: "Why couldn't a film like Precious be in 3-D? It should be." I love Scorsese, but that's not a question I ever wanted to hear, especially because that's right where they're crossing the line with 3D. Scorsese goes on to try and convince us by saying, "we see in depth, for the most part. We go to the theater -- it's in depth." True, but 3D is too gimmicky to work well for every movie. Just a few weeks ago we talked about how bad it is to convert a 2D movie in post instead of shooting in 3D.
Scorsese later goes on to say "I'd love to do [a 3D movie]," only as "long as he can still move the camera the way he'd like to." Sure, maybe if they render a digital world and use the cameras Cameron used on Avatar. "It just seems natural that we'd be going in that direction," he explains. "It's going to be something to look forward to, but to be used interestingly." I'm not sure "interestingly" is the right word to describe how it's going to be used. I prefer inappropriately or excessively or poorly, which already happens all too often. It's a good article and I suggest reading the entire thing. Does anyone actually want to see Precious in 3D?
All I have to say is if Scorsese says it's okay, then it's okay.
samir on Mar 3, 2010
lul precious in 3D joke of the century
Logan on Mar 3, 2010
Sorry Marty, but thats a stupid f@ckin idea.
People's Champ on Mar 3, 2010
Who didn't think 3D when they saw the Precious trailer? So natural! /sarcasm.. as if it were needed.. But seriously, might as well now that the floodgates have been opened. I'm sure the masses will eat it up.
Dark Fist on Mar 3, 2010
I agree with #3 wholeheartedly. Shutter Island was good, not great, and 3D would've ruined it. 3D is a tool to immerse audiences into the world/realm of the movie. Ideally suited for Avatar, Coraline, Up, even Alice in Wonderland (if it had been MADE in 3D). Not for any movie... ANY movie situated in "the real world". Even the Matrix, because the Matrix was a simulation of the real world. Only other acceptable movie would be the big bang blockbuster, but not all the time. Dark Knight... No, Saving Private Ryan... Yes, Transformers (either)... No. Titanic... Yes. Terminator (any)... No. Starship Troopers... Yes. Total Recall... Maybe 😛 When you think of just being in that world/environment as something worth being a part of then it should be. It's better to think of the world/scenery in the film as a character in and of itself then it deserves to be fully fleshed out in 3D. Last suggestion... Buried, starring Ryan Reynolds. discuss.
Akirakorn on Mar 3, 2010
i don't want to see precious in ANY form..........EVER.
beavis on Mar 3, 2010
Marty is right, he has convinced me. In the future almost every movie will be in 3D and not as a gimmick but as common as widescreen. A way of getting a more real experience. 3D will become standard just as color and sound
Loser on Mar 3, 2010
Then 3d better be better than it is now, it's like 2x 2D fields of differenth depth...
ryderup on Mar 3, 2010
It took a damn long while, but, well......maybe Scorsese has lost it. Marbles and movies all together.
Voice of Reason on Mar 3, 2010
I agree with this portion of the article. "There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience," Ebert wrote in a 2008 review. "Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that what we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion." Go Ebert.
germs on Mar 3, 2010
If filmmakers didn't tell the public how to watch films, we'd still be watching 4:3 pan and scan at home.
sumonesumtime on Mar 3, 2010
Precious was already practically in 3D. That girl was like 400 pounds.
Shane on Mar 3, 2010
I don't know why everyone is closed-minded about this. If a director like Scorsese thinks that 3-D could work for a drama why not wait and see the results. To my knowledge there has never been a full-on drama shot in 3-D with a quality director so why not just wait and see before condemning it?
dru on Mar 3, 2010
when people get old they tend to lose there minds or say retarted things... case in point. (and its not the first time he has done this... ie Taxi Driver remake)
d on Mar 3, 2010
Scorsese, what are you smokin`? If there`s any movie on earth that needs 3D (not any of them really do) it`s not Precious.
Mr.Cookie on Mar 3, 2010
aw looks like someone is having a senior moment, seriously marty get a fucking grip, 3-D blows Avatar sucked in 3-D it detracted from what stroy there was and why do I need subtitles in 3-D? Anyone? Anyone? #13 Dru, Drama in 3-D now that is a oxymoron in every sense of the word...would Road to Perdition have been better in 3-D? Forest Gump? A Beautiful Mind? or Gangs of New York? The answer is NO. 3-D is cancer on film.
Xerxex on Mar 3, 2010
#5 Saving Private Ryan in 3-D is that what you're saying? If that's so, WW2 films DO NOT belong in 3-D. as for Buried hell no.
Xerxex on Mar 3, 2010
Im with #6 on this one
movie mike on Mar 3, 2010
#16 Not exactly sure how drama in 3-D is an oxymoron. And the answer to your question of whether or not any of those films would have been better in 3-D is... We don't know. It wasn't done. None of those films were shot in 3-D by someone who was making a 3-D film. Neither has any drama. And that is my point, it's never been done so why not give it a shot and then decide whether it works or not?
dru on Mar 3, 2010
Ummmm, I cant believe he said that. 3-d needs to be buried totally I dont even care if it used "properly".....I AM SO SICK OF HEARING 3-D!!!!!!!
Cody on Mar 3, 2010
AWESOME idea! And drama's in S3D will become the norm in the next 3-5 years too. 🙂
Jim Dorey on Mar 3, 2010
Dru Saving Private Ryan would have been a debacle in 3-D. as for the oxymoron thing, just an expressions things that don't go together: Peace maker missle, soft-core porn, airline schduals, 3-D Drama (made that one up), etc.
Xerxex on Mar 3, 2010
The problem with 3D is it interrupts the narrative. While the emotions, sensory, music, and setting pull you in, the 3D just, pushes me away. If there was one person in the world that I thought would agree with me I always thought it would be Marty.... 🙁
Al on Mar 3, 2010
I basically agree with you completely Alex, and on a side note I will not be seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D.
yo on Mar 3, 2010
No No No I am not believing that for a second...Unless he says that on camera then there is no way I will accept that Martin Scorsese said such a thing.
DiR3cT on Mar 4, 2010
Xerxex we don't know if Saving Private Ryan would have been a debacle in 3-D because Spielberg never shot it in 3-D. He never planned to shoot it in 3-D and they never converted it to 3-D. You're right that if they converted it as is to 3-D it would most likely be a terrible mistake. But if they worked from the ground up to plan and shoot in 3-D I'm sure that Spielberg would make it work. Especially a movie with as much action as Saving Private Ryan.
dru on Mar 4, 2010
I agree with dru. There are a lot of great tool users out there, and a lot of good tools still to be discovered. Cameron was uniquely able to discover and develop a lot of them because he was willing (and able) to take a hiatus that concentrated several R&D efforts, with a coincidence of other companies doing likewise. He waited a long time to get that story made and doubtless would have waited longer... One of those tools is dimensionalization. Anyone who has seen it done well, seen the Star Wars (or the mythologized Hill of Beans) clip comes away thinking that this is the way it is supposed to be. Even though a lifetime of film watching has honed our ability to grab 3D clues from the other sources, getting that last clue can be a natural that we will all get used to over time and learn to appreciate.
DCineGuy on Mar 5, 2010
#26 - dru Oh yes, let's watch Saving Private Ryan in 3D and experience the horrors of war jumping at us until we shit and giggle. Next we'll have Schindler's List in 3D and we can see the holocaust in all it's 3 dimensional glory. Perhaps when they shoot the jews it'll jump out of the screen at us and "immerse" us.
Governor on Mar 25, 2010
Love Scorsese, can't agree with him at all on this.
SlashBeast on Mar 25, 2010
#5 - Akirakorn Lol, you're a retard. You "agree" with #3 but he didn't say a word about Shutter Island. Lol, retard.
Glass on Mar 25, 2010
Governor, I think that you are missing the point. Perhaps it is caused by the mis-nomer of 3D itself, instead of using the term stereoscopic as we should. Since the black and white-only days, photographers and directors have known how to capture a picture that gives our eye/brain set enough data to know that one person is standing in front of another, whether it be by shadows or focus or some other detail. The most compelling of them were able to make us feel that we were looking at a broad blue sunlit sky behind the tall green corn when it was only shades of grey. But there were many that were not as compelling, leaving us with flat looking images with perhaps a story compelling enough to keep us interested...or perhaps not. Just like the introduction of color to the process, stereoscopic pictures add another clue to to the dozen or more clues that make a flat picture appear more natural. Like every show, it requires the suspension of disbelief. For you, current 3D has thrown you out of that suspension, while many find it possible to maintain and enjoyable. Like you, I get thrown out, but by fake-looking explosions, lazy acting and bad scripts. It doesn't make me rant against all movies with actors, scripts or explosions. The next generation of digital projectors will allow brighter stereoscopic images, and the next generation of stereoscopic movies will have more refined tools for the directors to create with. Glasses will be more comfortable, and probably owned by you. Hopefully, this will make the experience better for you, since the market of kids coming up were raised on the look of digital, enjoy 3D, and will expect it of everything they see...and the content producers will likely give it to them. Was 3D required for the models of the Star Wars battle cruisers to lock you into the movie, or the last few minutes of smoke in the final scene of Casablanca to make you believe that Bogie was on a foggy airstrip in the desert, or to make those movies great? Not for us who grew up with that look. But seeing a few minutes of them 'dimensionalized', one can see how a great director will understand that this is a story-telling element that will make future eyeball/brain sets suspend disbelief regardless of whether today's methodology is perfect.
DCineGuy on Mar 25, 2010
^ Shut the fuck up, bitch. Like I fucking care.
Governor on Apr 24, 2010
There's nothing wrong with ANY movie being in 3D -- as long as the 3D is done properly and appropriately (which hasn't been the case with nearly any of the 3D movies released so far). One thing that's been done with 3D so far that's a bad thing is changing the left/right distance between shots. In real life, the distance between your eyes doesn't change, so doing that gives the 3D an artificial and gimmicky feeling. If you want to change the amount of depth, the proper way of doing that is to move the 3D camera closer to or farther away from the subject. The left/right distance should remain exactly the same (at a particular distance around 7 centimeters). And, of course, the convergence and the focal length of the lenses should remain exactly the same as well. Just because the 3D with current 3D movies is being made gimmicky doesn't mean that it has to be. And yes, stereoscopic is a more accurate term. I am a self-taught expert with 3D, and here is a list of what I think are the top 5 movies that should have been filmed in 3D (assuming that the 3D was done properly and appropriately): 1. United 93 (2006, R) 2. Saving Private Ryan (1998, R) 3. Aliens (1986, R) 4. Air Force One (1997, R) 5. Deep Blue Sea (1999, R)
Matthew Barich on Sep 17, 2010
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.