One of Hollywood’s favorite things to do right now is put movies out in 3D. Currently in theater there are three of these movies, Kung Fu Panda 2, Thor, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Over the last five years over 40 movies have been released or re-released as 3D movies and there’s at least ten by my count coming out before the end of summer.
People go to see 3D because it’s new and different; directors and animators like it because they have a new technology to push to the edge; Hollywood likes it because people will come out in droves to see 3D movies. Even though 3D is pretty trendy, I don’t like it; in fact, I dare say I’m already tired of the one trick pony that 3D animation really is.
The movie theater is expensive enough. Ticket prices have gone way up over the last several years, and any snack will cost you an arm and the drink will cost you a leg. Now, with 3D movies, the theaters get to add one more charge to any moviegoer’s trip. Over the summer, the popularity of 3D movies lead to a hike in ticket prices, now theaters charge as much as $20 a ticket for IMAX 3D films, taking a family to the movies could easily end up costing $100 with ticket prices like that.
My favorite part of the extra money for 3D tickets was the explanation I got from the theater I frequent, Showcase Cinemas in Randolph, MA. It’s assumed that the extra $4 they tack on to your ticket price is for the 3D glasses you must wear in order to watch the movie, but not so at this theater. At Showcase Cinemas in Randolph, your 3D glasses are free! Huzzah! However, you are charged a premium fee for seeing a 3D film, but hey, the glasses are free so that’s nice, right?
I personally can’t even get excited for seeing something in 3D. I’m not sure it truly enhances my moviegoing experience. For one thing I’m now forced to watch the movie through darkened glasses, thus tinting every image presented to me. This may not bother some people but it’s frustrating for someone like me who goes to the theater to see the visuals. Movies like Avatar and Up! were two different, yet very popular 3D movies. Avatar became the highest grossing film of all time; what they presented was pictures filled with vibrant color.
My question is why would the animators and special effects teams that worked for director James Cameron or Pixar — who worked hard to create the images we see — want their work to be tinted? We, the viewer, aren’t allowed to see the original image they crafted, but instead one darkened by the 3D glasses we must wear in order to see. With ticket prices being what they are, I personally want to see the image as it was originally intended. I saw Thor in glorious 2D; not only did I get to see the clear vibrant image director Kenneth Branagh created, but I saw it for nearly half the price of some 3D tickets.
Hollywood is so enamored with the possibility of 3D that they’re even converting non-3D films to the 3D format. Clash of the Titans was filmed as a 2D film and then converted to a 3D film. I saw the 2D version and have no idea how making it 3D would have improved it as a film. Even the revered George Lucas is jumping on the 3D bandwagon; within the next few years we’ll get to see his original three Star Wars films in 3D … and I thought it was bad when Lucas allowed Greedo to shoot first.
I don’t see 3D as improving anything. In fact, I only see it as another way for Hollywood to line their pockets with a little more cash. I hope — for the sake of wallets everywhere — that this is just another fad in Hollywood, that the movie going public will grow tired of coughing up the extra cash and stop going, and Hollywood will stop pumping out these overpriced 3D films. To movie goers everywhere I say: save your money; the movie will be just as good in 2D.
Kenneth Sheehan is a former sports journalism major moving on into the realities of adulthood. He takes his passion for movies with him wherever he goes and is forever pleased to share it.
Clacked by Guest Clacker
on Jun 02, 2011 @ 00:13 EST5EDT
Kenneth, I have to agree and disagree with you about 3D. I love the format – when it’s used and projected properly. Not every movie needs to be in 3D, especially those that were shot in the 2D format. Clash of the Titans was bad, The Last Airbender was just awful, like watching the movie through a dirty car window at the drive-in. Thor at least looked okay, but it still didn’t need to be converted. There’s some controversy now as to the projection equipment causing unusually dark images, so in some cases the theaters are to blame for some of the murkiness. If the projectors aren’t putting out the right amount of wattage, the movie is going to be dark, and even darker with the glasses (which can be fatal for a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean). But I hate 2D to 3D conversion, and not even an excuse like “we shot for 3D in 2D” could convince me that the conversion was anything but awful for Piranha 3D.
On the flip side, I love 3D movies that are presented properly. Avatar, especially seen on an IMAX screen, was spectacular with the right presentation (and IMAX glasses seem less dark than Real-D glasses). The effects really brought you into the movie. It was planned in 3D and shot in 3D, so everyone knew what they were working towards (Up however, was not enhanced at all by the format). I have to say my favorite 3D movie so far was Step Up 3D because the director used the effect to its fullest potential. You had hands in front of your face, balloons and bubbles floating off the screen and some amazing depth and separation between dancers that made you feel like you were watching a live dance performance. The effect was stunning, even if the story was pedestrian and, unfortunately, the movie tanked. It will be interesting to see if James Cameron has advanced the conversion process far enough to make the conversion of Titanic more like true 3D and how that will affect the Star Wars films. But, you’re right, Hollywood has to stop making us foot the bill for their little indulgence if they really want the format to succeed.
I completely agree, 3D adds nothing to a film, just makes it dark and blurry
I have to admit Chuck, sometimes 3D can be good, I saw Tron: Legacy in Imax 3D, and it really was head and shoulders above what I had seen before. I don’t want to say 3D should forever be shelved, however it hasn’t been perfected yet, and I’d just hold off till it was. James Cameron advanced the technology once, and I’m sure he’ll do it again, I’m intrigued to see where he’ll take it with the next Avatar film.
I’m not sold on 3D yet, I’m fine with an artfully crafted 2D image, that being said, I’m sure I’ll see another 3D film in the future, and hopefully it will be better.
I agree. I hate 3D. Though, I loved seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D. The difference was that Avatar was filmed in 3D. Most of these movies are filmed in 2D and then the 3D is added in post-production. Those are a waste to see in 3D.
Avatar was a visual masterpiece. The story was not particularly special but when you combine the story, the acting, and the visuals it was a great movie.
The other reason I won’t go to a 3D movie – I’m cheap. I’d rather see two early bird movies than one 3D movie – though I do love the IMAX!
I’m a sucker for the big screen too Carla, and there’s nothing like a cheap movie on the big screen!
What will happen though is if people stop going to see the crappy 3D movies then Hollywood will do a big outcry on pirating saying it’s the reason no one is going.. not because the general public doesn’t have $20 to spend on a movie they don’t even get to own!