To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right LEGO Movie Ticket From Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the wacky minds that brought you Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, comes The LEGO Movie, a family-friendly animated adventure that brings a wide world of LEGO's mini-figures to life. Chris Pratt gives voice to Emmet, a common construction worker who stumbles across an incredible destiny to save all of the LEGO worlds from the nefarious plot of Lord Business! Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Charlie Day and Morgan Freeman also lend their voices. Our theatrical review will weigh in on whether or not this new release is worth your time, while this column will focus solely on the film's use of 3D. Considering seven separate categories, To 3D Or Not To 3D evaluates the full scope of the 3D viewing experience. Think of it as a consumer's guide for your movie-going, complete with a viewers poll where you can weigh in on how you plan to see The LEGO Movie. 3D can go great with action, and truly sings in computer-generated productions.
Stuffed with car chases, explosions and flashy battle scenes all constructed with CGI, The LEGO Movie is a perfect venue for the use of 3D. Construction on The LEGO Movie began back in 2009, the same year that James Cameron's Avatar made 3D a game-changer. Nowadays its practically a requirement that a computer-animated movie offer a 3D version. With the years since spent carefully creating the animation, you can bet a good amount of that time went into the film's 3D, and it shows. This is that element of 3D where it appears the movie is protruding into the theater. It's 3D's flashiest attribute, and The LEGO Movie uses it as such, adding punch to gunfights where the gunfire blocks seem to pop right out of the screen! Other actions sequences also allow us to get a bit closer to Emmett and the gang as they are thrown sky high and right at us. Alternately, this is the portion of 3D that appears to extend back into the screen. The LEGO Movie has extraordinary sets, ranging from pirate ships to a sprawling LEGO city, the Wild West, and a fantasy realm known as Middle Zealand.
The 3D definitely adds a deeper sense of dimension to all of the above. However, the movie is so fast-paced that the filmmakers have chosen to keep audience eyes focused on the foreground, presumably so they don't miss a key plot points. So, while the sets reach far into the background, Lord and Miller chose to have them mostly out of focus--pulling yours to their main players and the action. It's a smart technique, but it loses this category a point. This is generally a problem with moody action movies that are draped in night and shadows. The LEGO Movie is defined by its bright colors, and its makers were smart enough to compensate so that 3D glasses wouldn't dim them. It's such a vibrantly lit movie, I forgot I had 3D glasses on. This is a test where you pull off your 3D glasses to see how much blur is on the screen. Basically, the more blur you see, the more 3D you're getting. I ran this test several times, and found a fair amount of blurring to a good amount. Like I said up top, the out of focus background means Lord and Miller didn't make the fullest use of 3D they could have.
However, it was aesthetically the right choice for the film by my count. Bad 3D can be downright harmful to your health, causing nausea, headaches or eye-strain. Happily, I experienced none of the above during The LEGO Movie. It's only arguably negative side effect is I that I can't shake the song "Everything is Awesome" from my internal jukebox. Continued On Next Page > Blended From Around The WebIs 3D movie technology a money-making gimmick or a true innovation? The answer is a little of both. Some movies use the technology to create more wonderfully immersive scenes, but others do little with the technology or even make a movie worse. Given the hit-or-miss nature of 3D and the steep cost of a ticket (adding $4 to an already expensive $14.50 New York City movie), I’ve learned to look up 3D evaluations like the ones put out by Cinema Blend. Just recently, Cinema Blend’s Kristy Puchko warned me in time that the 3D version of the otherwise excellent “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is a dizzying waste of money.
For further insight into when 3D is effective or not and where the technology is going, I emailed Sean O’Connell, Movie Content Director for Cinema Blend. My questions and his responses are below: What are some of the best examples of 3D in movies and what makes them so good? Recently, Doug Liman’s “Edge of Tomorrow“ boasted the best 3D. Camera positioning in the action sequences and a real focus on “before the window” imagery (meaning stuff that comes off of the screen and into the theater) helped put the audience into the movie. And that, to me, is the point of 3D. It should be used as a tool of immersion, a visual device that helps you feel like you are part of the story. When we watched Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” (another amazing example), we felt like we were in outer space. That’s why James Cameron’s “Avatar” still stands as the finest example of what 3D can do. Audiences felt like they visited Pandora with each screening, because his use of 3D placed us INSIDE the movie.
Outside of that, 3D tends to work best in the field of animation, which is why the 3D in “How to Train Your Dragon 2” and “The LEGO Movie” amazed. What are some of the worst examples of 3D in movies and what makes them so bad? 3D, as a tool, is improving, so you have to go back a few years to pull examples of truly offensive 3D. After “Avatar,” studios raced to make everything 3D, just so they could charge extra for a ticket price. Post-converted 3D damaged movies like “Wrath of the Titans,” Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland,” and a slew of horror movies that wanted to capitalize on the gimmick without putting in the extra effort. The 3D in these films are bad for two main reasons. If and when you are going to use 3D, you have to plan your shots differently. Applying 3D to already-filmed material rarely helps. You are forcing a square peg into a round hole, essentially. Movies like “Life of Pi” and “Hugo” are plotted and conceived to take advantage of the tricks 3D can offer a storyteller.
Movies like “Texas Chainsaw 3D” are not. The other detriment to 3D in these instances is the absence of light in a 3D movie. 3D really needs brightness and saturation. Horror movies and period adventures (like an “Underworld” movie, or “I Frankenstein“) immediately are behind the curve because their visual palettes are dark, which reduces the effectiveness of 3D behind the slightly shaded glasses. Daytime scenes in “Thor: The Dark World” or “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” help 3D action sequences pop. Nighttime fights in horror films often do not pop, and that’s a problem. What does it mean to shoot a movie in 3D as opposed to shooting in 2D and converting it? How big a difference does this make? Some directors film using 3D, stereoscopic cameras, which create the two versions of the image needed to create the immersive effect on one’s eye. They commit to 3D cameras (which are still a developing tool). It is the most natural way to capture imagery to be presented in 3D.
But it’s harder, because the industry is still experimenting with the tools, and costs are high. It is easier, but less effective, to shoot a film with traditional, 2D cameras, and “add” the 3D later, in post-production. But the mere act of “conversion” opens the door to possible problems. Higher frame rates on certain movies (the recent “Hobbit” films, for example) can create visual hiccups. Anytime images are converted in post-production, the slightest tinge can create lag, which tricks the eye. Manipulating ANY image leads to possible problems, so movies filmed in 2D and converted to 3D have to have near-perfection to be great … and near-perfection rarely happens! How has 3D technology improved in the past few years and what do you expect going forward? The more you do ANYTHING, the better you will get at it. The more time that storytellers have had to think about 3D, the better (and more innovative) their approach to the tool has become. We are seeing more movies — like “Hugo” and “Gravity” — that basically exist to take advantage of 3D.
It is a big part of the storytelling process. That has been the biggest improvement. Movies that incorporate 3D from the beginning stages of the movie — not shoehorned onto the movie late in the game. But wearing the glasses is still a pain. And so, going forward, I think we’re going to get to a point where 3D will be possible without glasses. Spielberg is leading this charge, as well. The development of projectors that will present a 3D image without the need for glasses. It sounds like voodoo! But it’s coming, and soon. What are the biggest pitfalls of 3D in movies? To me, the biggest pitfall when it comes to 3D is the cost of a ticket. Because 3D is basically applied to every animated movie, whether they need 3D or not, it is becoming so much more expensive for a family to go see the latest Disney, Pixar, or DreamWorks movie. Of course, families CAN choose 2D versions of the same movies. But “How to Train Your Dragon 2″ loses some of its appeal if not seen in 3D … and that’s a costly night at the movies for a family of four.