Varför var inte Interstellar skott i 3D?

Christopher Nolan är ganska berömd, förskräckt med 3D; som han uppfattar som en industri som tvingas i motsats till publikens ledda teknik ... i grund och botten är det bara som ett sätt för filmindustrin att tjäna mer pengar. Nolan är en stor förespråkare för Film, och en stor kritiker av filmindustrins tävlingar som driver för 3-D:

"The question of 3-D is a very straightforward one," said Nolan. "I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for."

Han har också varit ganska uppenbar om hur 3D visuellt minskar det slutliga innehållet , i motsats till att bidra med något estetiskt till det ...

"I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. 3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we’ve tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you. So the effect of it, and the relationship of the image to the audience, has to be very carefully considered. And I feel that in the initial wave to embrace it, that wasn’t considered in the slightest.”

Christopher Nolan har upprepade gånger uttryckt sin motvilja mot 3D baserat på olika anledningar:

• Till exempel i en intervju om Inception uttryckte han att det var intressant 3D är inte alltför relevant för en filmens effekt :

  DEADLINE: Why didn’t you shoot in 3D which studios like Warner Bros have made a priority?
  NOLAN: We looked at shooting Inception in 3D and decided we’d be too restricted by the technology. We wouldn’t have been able to shoot on film the way we’d like to. We looked at post-converting it, actually did some tests, and they were very good. But we didn’t have time to do the conversion that we would have been satisfied with. Inception deals with subjectivity, quite intimate associations between the audience and the perceived state of reality of the characters. In the case of Batman, I view those as iconic, operatic movies, dealing with larger-than-life characters. The intimacy that the 3D parallax illusion imposes isn’t really compatible with that. We are finishing our story on the next Batman, and we want to be consistent to the look of the previous films. There was more of an argument for a film like Inception. I’ve seen work in 3D like Avatar that’s exciting. But, for me, what was most exciting about Avatar was the creation of a world, the use of visual effects, motion capture, performance capture, these kinds of things. I don’t think Avatar can be reduced to its 3D component, it had so much more innovation going on that’s extremely exciting. 3D has always been an interesting technical format, a way of showing something to the audience. But you have to look at the story you’re telling: is it right?

• I en intervju med < em> The Telegraph sa han att han fortfarande är skeptisk till hela tekniken, att han tycker inte om det som en tittare själv och att han tycker att många tittare är överens med honom:

  When we talked about his movie Inception and why he decided not to convert it to 3D, he told me: “3D has come and gone many times over the years. I don’t particularly enjoy watching films in 3D because I think that a well-shot and well projected film has a very three dimensional quality to it so I’m somewhat sceptical of the technology.

  “Until we get rid of the glasses or until we really massively improve the process, I’m a little weary of it.”

• Han är också anser att den är ett sätt för studior att debitera högre biljettpriser , något som han, utifrån respekt för sin publik , inte vill ha för sina egna filmer:

  “The question of 3-D is a very straightforward one,” Nolan said in a recent interview. “I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for.

  “It’s up to the audience to tell us how they want to watch the movies. More people go see these films in 2-D, and so it’s difficult data to interpret. And I certainly don’t want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price.”

• Och i en artikel om Interstellar Han förklarar att medan han fortfarande tycker om att omfamna ny teknik (till exempel han är ganska IMAX-fan), anser han att digital och 3D inte är det bästa sättet att fånga bilder för honom:

  The “Interstellar” filmmaker confessed that he is not a fan of 3D and prefers to shoot on film, not digital. “I'm committed to film not out of a sense of nostalgia,” Nolan said. “Film is the best way to capture an image.” He's not a luddite, he claimed. It's just that images aren't as sharp and can appear pixilated when projected or shot digitally. “I'm in favor of any kind of technical innovation…for me it always has to exceed the technology that came before it,” Nolan explained.

  Nolan argued that studios are more interested in bottom lines than beauty. Digital copies of films are less expensive to produce and ship to theaters than 35 millimeter copies of films. He suggested that studios are willing to accept technical imperfections “in the drive to make things cheaper.”

  Not all 3D is bad, Nolan argued. He praised Baz Luhrmann‘s “The Great Gatsby” as a film that used the extra dimensionality to great effect and created an atmosphere that washed over viewers. Yet, it can also have an isolating impact, Nolan suggested, one that removes viewers from a communal experience of moviegoing. “My resistance to 3D is purely based on what I feel is right for the films I want to make,” Nolan said.

Som ett litet tillägg tittade jag bara på Wolfgang Schmitt s intressanta analys av filmen och han också ger några anmärkningar om filmens och Nolan s klibbiga till analoga 2D, inställer den i förhållande till tanken på åtminstone vissa traditioner medan man fortfarande vågar in i nya områden som finns i filmens historia, liksom pragmatism och anglo-saxonfilosofi förmodligen inneboende i resten av filmen (översatt till engelska av mig):

Nolan is an advocate of the analog cinema and this materiality of the film is also reflected aesthetically. It's the little impurities, the rouhgness of the images from cinematographer Van Hoytema, which makes the screen actually look like a screen. There doesn't reign a photoshop-highgloss aesthetic here, the screen doesn't become a slick user interface. There is really still sweat on Cooper's face, the space shuttle doesn't look like being cleaned daily by a cleaning sqaud...

...But it's also about tradition and origin. In the movie there's a careful evaluation of what has to be kept and what can be removed for standing in the way of progress. [...] Books still play a large role, and not everything that's new is good, for they shy away from the act of just reproducing the humans artificially. The human as he is is alright, the movie wants to say, enough potential is in him and he too can reach new dimensions without sacrificing his being human. What holds for the humans also holds for cinema. Christopher Nolan, the upright fighter for the alalog cinema shows us what is possible with the classic film stock. Like the good old book shelf can be a key to new galaxies in the movie - one of the most beautiful homages to the printed book one has to say - in the same way in the good old cinema there's still new things to experience. But the real new things are only possible when there's also something kept. Of course Christopher Nolan doesn't need 3D glasses to show this, as he's long reached the 5th dimension anyway.

En sak som ännu inte nämnts här är att Nolan också är missnöjd med den tekniska begränsningen av befintlig teknik, nämligen att 3D-filmer är betydligt mörkare:

“On a technical level, it’s fascinating,”, “but on an experiential level, I find the dimness of the image extremely alienating.”

3D-processen, sade Nolan,

makes “a massive difference” in the brightness of the image. “You’re not aware of it because once you’re in that world, your eye compensates – but having struggled for years to get theaters get up to the proper brightness, we're not sticking polarized filters in everything."

(skamlöst lånas från detta svar )