Recently, there's been a new outburst of movies in 3-D. With higher ticket prices and enough of a "wow" factor to keep audiences happy even when the movies themselves aren't so great, it's no surprise that Hollywood is planning to push out even more 3-D product in the coming year.
I was willing to go along for the ride. I like 3-D movies, and I'll admit that it does make movie-going more of an experience, but when I heard that they're considering converting older movies like Titanic into the 3-D format, I knew things had gone too far.
Look, 3-D is a genre, just like horror or suspense. That means that not every movie can be a 3-D movie.
If you want to go back and make Die Hard even more eye-popping that's fine, but please don't try to have Billy Crystal coming at me during When Harry Met Sally just to milk a few extra bucks out of a classic.
(If you think I'm exaggerating, google some of the movies they're thinking of tinkering with and you'll be shocked.)
3-D movies work best when they're 3-D movies from their conception. Now, studios are taking movies like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and making them 3-D movies, and in my opinion, it's not working out.
A filmmaker not knowing he's making a 3-D film is like a chef not knowing whether he's making an entree or an appetizer. The food might still turn out fine, but something will seem a little bit...off.
Since we're already using the Alice in Wonderland example, let's talk about how the movie wasn't able to take advantage of the 3-D format because of the last minute decision to change it over. There were no fun 3-D moments, and so all that extra money on tickets was spent to see a film with an extra level of visual depth.
Sorry if I sound cynical here, but woo hoo.
I think 3-D movies should be special occasions, not weekly offerings. Pretty soon, people are going to get a little sick of having bulky glasses on while they're trying to eat their popcorn and relax while taking in the latest romantic comedy.
Don't believe me?
Then ask yourself why 3-D movies disappeared the first time...
I was willing to go along for the ride. I like 3-D movies, and I'll admit that it does make movie-going more of an experience, but when I heard that they're considering converting older movies like Titanic into the 3-D format, I knew things had gone too far.
Look, 3-D is a genre, just like horror or suspense. That means that not every movie can be a 3-D movie.
If you want to go back and make Die Hard even more eye-popping that's fine, but please don't try to have Billy Crystal coming at me during When Harry Met Sally just to milk a few extra bucks out of a classic.
(If you think I'm exaggerating, google some of the movies they're thinking of tinkering with and you'll be shocked.)
3-D movies work best when they're 3-D movies from their conception. Now, studios are taking movies like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and making them 3-D movies, and in my opinion, it's not working out.
A filmmaker not knowing he's making a 3-D film is like a chef not knowing whether he's making an entree or an appetizer. The food might still turn out fine, but something will seem a little bit...off.
Since we're already using the Alice in Wonderland example, let's talk about how the movie wasn't able to take advantage of the 3-D format because of the last minute decision to change it over. There were no fun 3-D moments, and so all that extra money on tickets was spent to see a film with an extra level of visual depth.
Sorry if I sound cynical here, but woo hoo.
I think 3-D movies should be special occasions, not weekly offerings. Pretty soon, people are going to get a little sick of having bulky glasses on while they're trying to eat their popcorn and relax while taking in the latest romantic comedy.
Don't believe me?
Then ask yourself why 3-D movies disappeared the first time...
Comments
Post a Comment