Center-stage in this craze is James Cameron and his 12 year old brainchild, Avatar. Though much has been said on this movie, whether it amounts to liberal eco-friendly pandering or is a red-blooded “no guts no glory” statement, or whether it should simply have been renamed “Dancing with the Smurfs” (South Park), the telling point is that very little comment has been made on the fact that it was in 3D. It is pretty clear that visually speaking Avatar is a step above other movies. James Cameron knew exactly what he wanted when he planned from day one for the movie to be in 3D and when he spent $250 million in achieving it. This hefty bill is already a forgotten memory as Avatar is well past two and a half billion dollars in revenue. However, what works for Cameron, a technical genius unto himself, will definitely not work for Hollywood.

If we look at the top three grossing movies of this year to date, all in 3D of course, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon, each of them highlights a reason why 3D is not working. While Cameron worked from the start with the idea of making Avatar a 3D movie, Tim Burton, in Alice in Wonderland, was forced to turn his movie into 3D. This resulted in a post production editing of the movie to throw in 3D here and there and this is readily apparent when you watch Alice in Wonderland. While the movie started on the right foot, the inevitable need to associate 3D with flying objects emerged as we were witness to the clash of armies and heroes gallivanting to and fro in a cookie cutter battle royale.

Clash of the Titans has none of these high minded problems of what exactly 3D adds to the movie as it is simply an awful movie. While we may question whether 3D has actually significantly impacted the gross of movies such as Avatar or Alice in Wonderland (taking into account the price difference), I can safely say that Clash of the Titans is best viewed after gouging your eyes out. The quick and messy 3D add-on was very obviously an afterthought meant to take advantage of the success of Avatar.

The big question mark looming over these two movies is how exactly has forcing 3D on these movies affected them. The major difference between both Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans and Avatar is that James Cameron had from the start developed the idea of making it in 3D. Cameron himself expresses worry at director’s being forced into 3D. “This is another example of Hollywood getting it wrong,” Cameron said. “Sony says, ‘we’re doing Spiderman in 3D.’ The director doesn’t say, ‘Hey, I want to make the movie in 3D.’ The studio says, ‘You want to direct this movie? You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!’ That’s not how it should be [...] now filmmakers are being told to make their movies in 3D.”

Michael Bay, director of the two Transformers movies, is also skeptical of 3D right now. In fact, though he is being pressured into turning his third Transformers movie into 3D, he does not see any benefit whatsoever. About 3D upconversion, Bay says, “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, this kind of sucks. [...] This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar tok four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie.” The point that he is making, and the point we have seen in two examples already, is that post production 3D fails to provide any benefit, and actually gives an air of the cheap and the fake to the movie.

Though How to Train Your Dragon is an awesome movie, it fails to cement 3D technology as a usable technology, as well as fails to widen the scope of 3D movies. We have seen that it has become an acceptable use of technology for animations or digitally made movies (green screen), but I cannot imagine how it will be used in a Scorsese movie or a drama like Up in the Air. This goes back to the point about how distracting 3D really can be. There is a large range of movies out there which would not benefit from the addition of 3D, which as of now is restrained to enhancing action, the notable though dubious exception being Alice in Wonderland. If you take as an example last year’s Oscar winner, The Hurt Locker, I personally cannot see any benefit that 3D would bring to this movie and I would go as far as to say that it would detract from the suspense created and the mood that is set throughout the movie.

Nevertheless, ambitious plans have been put into motions as directors left and right are jumping on the 3D bandwagon. There are plans for further animated 3D movies, such as Shrek and Toy Story, but directors are most keen on reintroducing older movies and ideas. Some of the more awkward of these choices are Step Up (3D dancing), Saw VII (3D butchery), Resident Evil: Afterlife (3D zombies), Jackass (3D trainwreck) and Yogi Bear (3D blasphemy). I’m going to stop short of calling this list laughable, as Jackass featuring Steve-O doing unimaginable things to his genitalia in 3D will be gag worthy, but this list is laughable.

Finally, and perhaps as a sidenote, we are being made to pay five extra dollars in order to see these movies in 3D. Maybe it’s the Asian genes kicking in, but where exactly is the benefit brought with the 40% price hike? The one point that 3D has yet to prove to me is what it bring to the table. Ignoring the cheap making and remaking of many movies, ranging from the amusing to the abhorrent, 3D is not only more expensive, but it distracts from the actual substance of the movie. This tradeoff between quality and plot and flashes, bangs and whizzing objects is necessarily a bad thing and 3D only serves to accentuate the growing importance of the latter. There is a reason 3D has only proven suitable in animation and movies destined to kids. It has, for now, reached its potential; unless we are planning on waiting four years for every movie to come out, or can shorten this period, leave the 3D to Disneyworld.

Contact the author via email

1. Draw outlines and sketches of whatever it is you want in your picture
2. Label each item as well as the background. You can also precise what the item is doing (e.g. “Horse run”)
3. Sketch2Photo will scour the internet to find matching pictures and combine them to create an image.

However, what is truly amazing about this software is the incredible image recognition technology as well as the blending algorithm used. It automatically compares images against each other to find which is best in terms of lighting, placement and angle. Where you would expect a crudely assembled photo superimposition, you actually get an image that seems to blend. Of course, there is no comparison to what can be done on Photoshop, but for the vast majority of people this can be a viable alternative and a decidedly quicker one.

“A system that composes a realistic picture from a simple freehand sketch with text labels. The composed picture is generated by seamlessly stitching several photographs in agreement with the sketch and text labels; these are found by searching the Internet,” says the Sketch2Photo architects in an abstract outlining the program. “Although online image search generates many inappropriate results, our system is able to automatically  select suitable photographs to exclude undesirable images. We also provide a novel image blending algorithm to allow seamless image composition.”

I can already hear the critics deriding it for being too simplistic and having no value in producing something of quality. However, it would be too hasty to dismiss Sketch2Photo as simply a tool to allow geek’s to play out their fantasy by superimposing themselves in compromising positions with Megan Fox. No one is suggesting this tool is perfected or even ready to be released to the public, but the potential behind such a technology is immense. In fact, the site hosting the program crashed shortly after its release due to the influx of interest and it is still impossible to download the program.

It’s still early, the product is not even available to download, and with what we know, it may not even have a use, but I cannot help but think this is one of the more innovative and cool releases (yet to be released) out there. If all it is destined to do is to create funny images and to fulfill geeky dreams, then so be it.

Contact the author via email

The ambition of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founders, is reflected in their mission statement: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” By simply making useful information available in 0.2 seconds with a single click, Google put the final nail in Yahoo’s coffin. However, Google’s mandate stretch far beyond simply becoming the most powerful and popular search engine in history. Access to information was the ultimate goal and, in order to reach this goal, Google has slowly infiltrated itself into our daily lives: from how we think, interact and manage information to media, education and telecommunication industries.

One of the first major blows Google struck was against the traditional medias. In 2001, Google unveiled Google News, a news aggregator which suddenly made the traditional media irrelevant. As newspaper sales went into free-fall, Google ruthlessly moved on to further industries. Next in line, in 2004, Google launched two major products: Gmail and Google Books. Though Gmail still faces competition from Microsoft and Yahoo among others, Google Books has slowly ushered in a new age of e-books. Amazon has worked hard to try and maintain its place in book sales with the release of Kindle and even Apple has entered the industry with the revelation of the iPad and more specifically the iBook application. The media industry took a further blow when Google revealed their plan to buy Youtube. This left Hollywood and the RIAA furious as Google did not actively take down copyrighted content.

More recently, Google has taken on the telecommunication industry. With the release of Google Voice and the Android, everything from traditional telecommunications to Skype were in danger. Also, with the release of Google Chrome, even Microsoft is feeling threatened, with Mac OSX and Google Chrome both encroaching on a market that once was firmly and decisively in Microsoft’s hands.

However, as of now, none of these products were able to provide a decisive blow to competing companies. Other industries reacted furiously to Google’s attempts at changing the market, with lawsuits being filed and deals being cut. Throughout all this, Google has remained relatively naive. As stated over and over again by Brin and Page, Google is not looking to take over the world, simply to organize it.

Of course, Google has its faults, but slowly, they are starting to redress themselves. What has long been a controversial struggle over censorship in China recently came to a head with Google refusing to continue to censor results. Some claim Google to even be evil, and perhaps with just cause. A company that is infiltrating every facet of our lives deserves some worry. A Google hegemony, no matter how benevolent, is a realistic fear. Google’s slogan of “do no evil” comes to mind as somewhat hypocritical. However, it is important to remember that there is still a choice in much of what Google offers. The problem is that Google is the best at what they do. In their mind, design is no longer responding to a consumer request, but rather understanding, anticipating and then serving our requests.

A decade of domination has come and gone, and Google are still going on strong. Google has without a doubt changed modern day economics and the way people perceive information and the Internet. No longer is business restricted to those who produce goods, but now includes those who organize these goods. Though it has been a decade of Google, the end does not seem in sight. If anything, Google is just expanding and expanding. Google may be hatching some evil plan to take over the world through manipulation, but, more realistically, they are just the best at what they do. Let the Google era run its course.

Contact the author vie email