The problem for me is that you can't have virtual reality films. Once a film enters virtual reality, it ceases to be a film in any recognisable way. To be accurate with the films at Sundance, they're not VR yet - they're basically glorified 3D. That's not to applaud the filmmakers for pushing the edge, I'm just saying that this is about as far as they can take the medium as filmmakers.
The
whole point of a film is that it is a passive, solitary experience.
You focus all of your attention on the screen. You are shown images
from a set angle in a set sequence that tell a set story. With VR,
all of those things become interactive and non-linear. Technically,
it is more akin to a game than a film. For example, I can see a time
very soon when George RR Martin is no longer here to continue the
story of Game of Thrones but he is simply replaced by "Game of
Thrones - the VR Interactive Experience" where people can join
the Stark clan or Ice King group or whatever and continue the
adventure themselves. Some of the best stuff will be recorded and
played back to anyone interested as a passive story.
This
is why VR won't appeal to everyone. Many people don't want to work
for their entertainment. They want to be passive and have it spoon
fed to them. So film will continue on for a very long time.
Of
course, VR won't just be the province of gamer/storytellers. It could
also be used to create interactive art installations and interactive,
improvised theatre. So VR looks like being a roleplaying experience
more than a film. In other words, if you reallyy want to experience
the future of VR, go to a murder mystery evening.
No comments:
Post a Comment