Toy Story 3: The Mounting Case Against 3D?

I hope you’ll pardon the lack of clarity in this post. I’m halfway through processing a reaction – on my way towards forming a cohesive thesis; All I have right now is a contradiction, that I’m trying to work out.

Here’s the basic setup: I always hated 3D effects – right up until Avatar. And it was there that I found myself immersed in a mesmerizing sensory experience unlike anything I had ever encountered. Avatar truly showed all of us what was possible, in molding a fully-realized, immersive 3D spectacle. I was taken into a world; my opinions about 3D shattered. (More at Techland: Read our analysis of Avatar’s 3D).

Well, about a week ago I was plunged into my second-best 3D experience ever, with Toy Story 3. The 3D plane was subtle, the immersion was profound and seamless. I barely noticed the integration. The 3D worked without rupturing the experience.

And yet repeatedly during the film, I took my 3D glasses off. I was infuriated by the darkness of the picture. For the second time now, Up included, I was missing the Pixar colors, burning into my face. I wanted to get lost in the pastels and textures, to lean into the faces and the body language that result in Pixar creating far more authentic works than their animated competitors. (More at Techland: We rank the best of the best Pixar movies)

In Toy Story 3D, the 3D process works flawlessly, and yet what I ultimately came to feel is that it added very little. It brought me into the space, but then shut me out of the other sensory information. All of which is why I think that, in many ways, Toy Story 3 is the most devastating evidence yet that 3D doesn’t make much sense for the majority of movies. Well, beyond carefully-authored 3D experiences that use the technique to dramatically heighten our immersion in the universe.

Avatar wanted me to feel all the dimensionality of Pandora – the heights and the depths and the space around things. And James Cameron made it work. Much the same will probably be true for Tron, which has been created with 3D in mind, using the technique to give us a sense of distance, depth and weight in a virtual world.

But still, I’ve never understood how 3D benefits, say, a romance or a drama. I’m confused about how 3D was necessary for Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans, where the story plays out in rather linear form. Or why it matters with a film like Toy Story 3, which is such a rich narrative that the special effects play a distant second fiddle to the pacing, plot, and personalities. (More at Techland: Meet all the new Toy Story heroes)

I’m not really sure where this leaves my line of thinking. I’ve seen 3D used to stunning effect. And then 3D that seemed utterly superfluous. Is it possible that 3D only works in a special effects-heavy creation?

We all admit that Avatar wasn’t the best story, but had great visuals. Is that the place for 3D, as super-sophisticated wallpaper? Is it possible that the very best stories do indeed lose something with all the visual tricks, and darkened tint?

Like I said, I don’t really know what I’m saying. I believe now more than ever before in the potential of 3D to elevate movies to a new, never-before-considered plateau. But I also know that I’ve just seen a brilliant movie that used the 3D process seamlessly, which didn’t gain a single thing from its usage.

How am I to reconcile that contradiction? When does 3D work and when doesn’t it? No, wait, I think that’s the wrong question. When does effective 3D enhance the experience, and when is it just unneeded extra icing on a perfectly delectable cake? More to the point: When does the packaging take away from the fun of the toy?

More at Techland: Top 10 Nerdy Theme Park Attractions

rully06

I think you’re right about 3D really only benefiting special-effects heavy movies with light stories. This is why I think Avatar 3D worked so well, too.
doubleang

So then, maybe it only works for movies whose main intent is to drown is in a world or settings rather than dialogue or humor.
If thats the case, then how many movies could that help? Avatar, Tron certainly…. sounds pretty limiting.
richardsrussell

It’s going to be quite a challenge to test your thesis, because how many people will go to see any given movie twice (once in 3-D and once in 2-D) just for the sake of being able to compare the 2 experiences fairly? (Even then it’s not a fair comparison, because any surprises from the 1st showing won’t be surprising at the 2nd viewing, your attention will tend to wander more, you’ll notice more of the little things in the background, and so on.)

Besides, screen brightness is determined by the projectionist at your particular theater, not by the filmmakers, so don’t fault the 3-D process for something it may have no control over.
gmcalpin

Your complaint about the brightness is uninformed: recent 3D movies (since before Avatar) project a brighter-than-it-should-be image in order to compensate for the darkness of the 3D glasses. Those “bright Pixar colors” you see when your glasses are one are NOT how the movie is intended to look.

People who don’t like 3D will never be happy with 3D: If the use of 3D is subtle, it “adds very little.” But if you point one thing at the camera (which people did plenty before 3D movies), then you’re being “gimmicky.”

It’s stupid. Don’t watch movies in 3D, if you don’t like it. They offer it both ways for people who CAN’T see stereoscopic 3D.
gmcalpin

“…when your glasses aren’t on…” (not “are one”), I meant. You guys need an edit button.
honewort

I don’t have any useful definition about when 3D is beneficial. But, when thinking about it, I’ve been using the b/w versus color analogy. There are many movies that I enjoy in their original black and white format. I do not think adding color to them will change my enjoyment of them for the better. (In many cases, the color may actually detract from the images.) People I know who dislike black and white movies always tell me: “but life is in color!” I don’t think that’s a good argument for whether 3D should be applied. But applying my analogy, we can ask, did adding color really help such and such a movie (since almost every movie has come out in color after it was introduced)? Maybe this is not a good comparison, since they probably have different effects on our brains, but it’s a fun analogy, no? Maybe in the future there will be people who will refuse to see any movie in 2D, just like there are people who hate anything in black and white.
http://figerrific.wordpress.com/ figerrific

3D in movies hasn’t wowed me with the exception of Avatar and How to Train A Dragon. Coraline, Shrek and Wonderland’s 3D wasn’t worth the extra the ticket cost. As for the pastel colors, I actually dislike overly bright colors (maybe why I didn’t like Wonderland). Then again, I’m the type that lowers the colors and bright/contrast on my HD set, so your worries are unfamiliar to me.
http://happyft.wordpress.com happyft

Agree! Unless there is a viable reason to use 3D, it shouldn’t be used in movies. Its just another way to boost ticket sales and it is just too dark underneath those glasses. I,too, watched Toy Story 3 two times: the first in 3D with my family then the second with another group of friends in 2D. The first time I was certainly more distracted by the taking on and off of my glasses when there was no absolute need for the 3D. It is a special effect, and when the story is strong on its own, the special effects are just that- an effect.
http://stacystest.wordpress.com stacyman

I haven’t seen Avatar, so I can’t really comment. I did see Toy Story 3 in 3D and the 3D was nice but I don’t know if it added to it. I’m inclined to think that I would rather see real-world environments and real people in 3D, so now I wish I would have seen Avatar just to see what it was like.

On our recent trip to Orlando, we went to Wonderworks and experienced the 4D theater. The seats moved, the wind blew, the lights flashed and of course we had to wear the 3D glasses. It was the total sensory experience. I wish I could do that in a home theater. That would be sweet.

I hope Hollywood will keep making 3D movies but only if they make them in 3D from the start like Avatar, instead of filming in 2D and then doing a sloppy conversion just to make a few extra bucks.