Alfonso Cuarón: Most 3D Films Are Crap

[Michael Dudikoff]

Really looking forward to seeing "Gravity" in 3D!

http://www.screendaily.com/news/cuar...e?referrer=RSS

Gravity director talks 3D, Sandra Bullock’s “astounding discipline” and why he may not be able to afford to make his dream movie.

Gravity director Alfonso Cuaron has branded most 3D movies as “crap”.

Speaking at a press conference at the Zurich Film Festival, where Gravity screens tonight as a ‘Green Carpet Gala’, the Mexican director said: “The problem with 3D is that it’s been completely misused.

“The problem now is that they make all these films that are not designed for 3D and then convert them as a commercially afterthought – and they are crap. They don’t follow the rules of 3D of what does and doesn’t work.

“There are a handful of films that have used 3D in a proper way so it can be an amazing tool.”

Gravity was designed to be seen in 3D and the 2D version is just “30% of the experience”, the director told Screen International editor Wendy Mitchell, who moderated the press conference.

The film stars Sandra Bullock as an astronaut who goes spiralling into space following an accident.

Cuaron praised Bullock, who stars alongside George Clooney, for her “astounding discipline” when making the film.

“Sandra started rehearsing and training five months before the shoot just to get fit because of the rigs she was going to use,” he recalled.

“She worked with stunts, special effects, her personal trainer and the puppeteers to see which parts of her body she needed to train specifically for the rigs.

“We started working together on hundreds of cues and timings because everything was pre-programming and she could not change timings. It was like dance choreography – more like we were doing a ballet.

“Her capacity of abstraction, because she was performing against nothing, was amazing. She was doing it with such precision that it looked like second nature and we could instead talk about performance and emotions.”

The director, who has previously made films including Y tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prison of Azkaban, was also asked how he chose projects.

“I don’t think about it, I do whatever feels right,” he replied.

“There are many other kinds of films I would like to do. Sometimes it’s down to money, not only getting the finance together but also if I can afford it.

“I have a dream movie I’d like to make but it’s tiny and not commercial. I couldn’t be paid but I have a family and a life.”

The film, which Cuaron thought would be a quick job, took more than four years. “I improvise a lot in my other films so this was completely different,” he said. “I enjoyed every part of the process but would never do it again.”

Drawing laughter from the assembled press, Cuaron added: “I now want to work on films in which people walk. I feel very strongly about this. If they walk, lay down, sit in wheelchairs or even swim, that would be fantastic.”

[GenPion]

It's accurate.

I'm a huge supporter of 3D filmmaking but a lot of the films released in 3D are not only bad films, but the 3D is implemented improperly and without care. Some conversions are good, some are bad, but at the end of the day the true standout releases that have used properly rendered 3D effects artfully are in a small class at the moment. It requires a great deal of skill and craft. The best 3D films have to be filmed using the right technological options or be converted by people who put the time and effort into making it the best (i.e. Jurassic Park).

If it wasn't for films like Avatar, Tron: Legacy, Hugo, Life of Pi, Prometheus, etc. there wouldn't be much in the way of innovation with the medium. I think if more people who dislike 3D saw these films presented in 3D (over, say, some of the downright bad conversions) there is potential that even more audiences would see the benefits.

Thankfully, the fact that these types of films exist (all of which are coming from first-class filmmakers) with cutting-edge 3D the technology is going to stay around and continue to grow. It's nice to know that Cuaron's latest film should be joining this list, based on early reviews/word of mouth for the film and it's 3D.

[EricJ]

And before we get the Header-Heads who don't read past the article headlines, saying "See, he said they're crap! ", let's just recap for the illiterate folk that this's coming from the director of the native-filmed Gravity, who is saying that post-conversions are crap.

Which they are, which's why we should support our local Native director.
(Even if Harry Potter 3 was crap.)

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And before we get the Header-Heads who don't read past the article headlines, saying "See, he said they're crap! ", let's just recap for the illiterate folk that this's coming from the director of the native-filmed Gravity, who is saying that post-conversions are crap.

Are you talking about the guy who wrote the header? He doesn't need to be insulted, I don't think. Perhaps you and the dancing banana disagree.

Everyone else can read.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Are you talking about the guy who wrote the header?

No, I'm talking about the Haterz who leap onto any thread that mentions a tabloid headline without actually reading the more detailed nuances of the article, hoping to spin any Haterz' Gold out of it.

And on that note...what took you so long?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

No, I'm talking about the Haterz who leap onto any thread that mentions a tabloid headline without actually reading the more detailed nuances of the article, hoping to spin any Haterz' Gold out of it.

And on that note...what took you so long?

"Haterz"? Did you see any? What the heck is that, anyway?

[Cocophone]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And before we get the Header-Heads who don't read past the article headlines, saying "See, he said they're crap! ", let's just recap for the illiterate folk that this's coming from the director of the native-filmed Gravity, who is saying that post-conversions are crap.

Which they are, which's why we should support our local Native director.
(Even if Harry Potter 3 was crap.)

I thought Gravity wasn't shot with 3D cameras but was post-converted to 3D.



-----------------
"Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there? When did time begin and where does space end?" - Wings of Desire

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

1) I usually don't like 3D.

2) I usually don't like Cuaron's movies.

3) Gravity justified the use of 3D. It wasn't gimmicky or intrusive. It enhanced the overall experience.

[Cocophone]

I'm really torn about seeing this in 3D. I haven't liked any of my past experiences watching 3D. I think that's because I wear glasses and I'm over 50 so the 3D bothers my eyes. Plus the picture has always been too dark since the 3D glasses are like wearing sunglasses.

I hate thinking about wasting $50 on 3D (2 tickets plus snacks) and not liking the 3D again.



-----------------
"Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there? When did time begin and where does space end?" - Wings of Desire

[lulu251777]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Yes, but that isn't a bad thing these days especially with a CGI heavy movie like this. He planned it for 3D and did it in a way he was more comfortable with as an artist. Conversion technology is fine as a 3D crafting medium these days as long as it has been planned for... same can be said about real 3D movies. There are plenty of so so real 3D movie. I would even say the better real 3D movies are a mixed bag as far as consistency of 3D is concerned.

Even though the conversion process has improved dramatically in the past few 3D releases, I still think there's nothing like well done native 3D films. There's just something about the amount of detail and life-like volume that just impresses me in a way that even the best conversions out there (Titanic, Jurassic Park) were not able to.

What sometimes bothers me is the fact that a lot of directors actually pass on the oportunity to shoot their movies in 3D, alleging it to be easier, or as you mentioned, more comfortable for them as artists. I always saw that as a lame excuse considering that the best 3D movies out there (Avatar, Hugo) were shot natively in 3D, and their superiority is clearly evident.

I think is rare to find justified conversions. Catalogue titles or when the conversion is imposed by the studio are some examples ( and budget concerns of course).

[Hunk Golden]

I saw this with my GF this weekend. Outstanding 3D. Outstanding movie!

Not 3D-related, but we saw 5 movies Fri-Sat. Here's how I'd rank them from best to worst:

1) Gravity (3D)
2) Prisoners
3) Don Jon
4) Rush
5) Captain Phillips

Gravity was my clear favorite. Phillips was my clear least favorite. The other 3 were all really damn good. It's nice to see a bunch of good movies instead of a bunch of filler. I can't remember the last time we saw that many good movies in a short time span. It's been a bunch of years.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Cocophone

I'm really torn about seeing this in 3D. I haven't liked any of my past experiences watching 3D. I think that's because I wear glasses and I'm over 50 so the 3D bothers my eyes. Plus the picture has always been too dark since the 3D glasses are like wearing sunglasses.

I hate thinking about wasting $50 on 3D (2 tickets plus snacks) and not liking the 3D again.



-----------------
"Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there? When did time begin and where does space end?" - Wings of Desire

I wear clip on passive glasses over my specs and they work great as it doesn't even feel you are wearing anything different.