3 ms·

There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique, despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much camera contr

There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique, despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much camera control (Blare Witch project had some awful shaky scenes far worse than Cloverfield). I don't buy any of these articles. Yes some people won't respond well to 3D, but the vast majority does and has in every implementation. This is as absurd as saying when the Model T was released, that because of a minority of the population having motion sickness that the automobile is destined to fail. I don't know a single person who has a problem with 3D. Well technically that's a lie, I know someone who's blind in one eye, so with the glasses they're just watching an over expensive 2D movie and without they're just watching a very fuzzy movie.

lyudmil 16y ago
I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold. Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or have shots with a lot of horizontal movement. Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.
chrislloyd 16y ago
I, and a bunch of my friends get headaches with 3D movies. Avatar included. The difference with the Model T is that people were willing to bear out neasea for the massive convenience a car brought. Blue aliens are less compelling.

lyudmil 16y ago

I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold. Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or have shots with a lot of horizontal movement. Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.

chrislloyd 16y ago

I, and a bunch of my friends get headaches with 3D movies. Avatar included. The difference with the Model T is that people were willing to bear out neasea for the massive convenience a car brought. Blue aliens are less compelling.