With the trending that the March 23rd release of Hunger Games is getting and the second movie pretty much greenlit as is with plans for the trilogy of books to be adapted into four films, it’s easy to throw questions about sequels with the films director Gary Ross. Ross was asked about things in regards to how he’s filmed this first one with its particular style in trying to capture the world from Katniss’ point of view, something that movies often don’t do, and he talks vaguely about where he wants to go with Catching Fire. But he also takes to task the 3D realm in regards to this film in a pretty direct manner.
“No, absolutely not, no [I wouldn’t consider 3D for Catching Fire]. I don’t think it’s appropriate for this film. I think that if we shoot this movie in 3D, we become the Capitol; we start making spectacle out of something that I don’t think is really appropriate here. There needs to be an aesthetic distance because of the nature of the material, the premise, what they’re doing. I think that cinematic techniques designed to intensify the experience if you feel them that way, aren’t really appropriate. I mean I love 3D, I really do and I think it’s a wonderful tool, I just don’t think it’s the right tool for this.”
[Source: Collider]
While I agree with his point of view of not wanting to venture in 3D, and it’s a fair decision, It’s a shame that he sees 3D as a “tool”.
His argument that 3D is meant only for “spectacle” and not aesthetic value, is a flaw in the system of graduating from 2D film school thinking.
There is an urgent need to un-learn and to start to “Think in 3D”
not that i’m suggesting in any way that he read my book!
Yet, seriously, not wanting to do a possible (P.O.V) type of film in 3D is to me, a sign that the art of storytelling is not being explored to its full potential.
Regards