A (Mostly) Worthless Dimension
WARNING: MEDIUM-SIZED FAIRLY RATIONAL RANT APPROACHING.
Can anyone honestly say that they LIKE 3D movies?
(Rhetorical question. I’m sure some can – there’s a defense force for everything nowadays.)
In any case, the way I see it is that 3D movies in 99% of their use take potentially good (or already-great) visuals and dumb it down so you can feel like the rock from that movie explosion is blurry and coming towards you at an average speed.
Why do I feel this way? When you have 2D classics like The Lion King being marred by blurry “advanced technology”, plus an extra hike on ticket prices to see a 20 year old movie, you make Mike something something.
(Go crazy.)
Alternate Caption: To Gouge Customers and Scar Classics
Just take a look at The Lion King’s Rotten Tomatoes score. 89% would be great for most movies…but this is The LION KING. Arguably the greatest animated film of all time. Other than reviewers looking to stand out (saying The Lion King has story/pacing problems? Get outta town), the only reason I can see for anyone not loving this movie’s current incarnation (which is said to be the same as the original other than the added dimension)?
Three. Dee.It’s big, bad, and unwelcome in my eyes.
Aside from the value problem with 3D movies, there’s the intrusiveness. I don’t know about you guys, but it’s hard for me to feel anything emotionally from a movie when I have novelty glasses on my face. The first 15 minutes of Disney Pixar’s UP were some of the most heart shredding ones in movie history, but all I could think about was “man, I’d probably feel something if I didn’t have these ridiculously thick plastic glasses on my face.” I could talk more about the darker image, the limited field of view, and the nausea it creates for some… then again, those are pretty self-explanatory.
3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.
That’s not to say that 3D doesn’t have some decent applications. For instance, the only reason to see the live action Pocahontas, James Cameron’s AVATAR was the visuals — they were spectacular (wish I could say the same for the story). Or more recently, Thor was a decent flick with 3D that wasn’t so intrusive.
I hope movie companies soon come to their creative senses and only apply it to movies that actually benefit from the technology instead of making a cash grab with it. But as long as people keep paying for the tickets, I guess that dream is for naught.
What do you think about 3D movies? Lemme know in the comments.
Ciao.
– Mike
PS Roger Ebert agrees with me so I must be right.
Made me lol with the UP reference.
Avatar is definitely the exception to the rule, haha.
And UP is so good that it defied the 3D to still be amazing.
Avatar: the exception to the rule!