Justin Ahrens
Sarah Ahrens
Kara Ayaram
Tim Damitz
Bob Davidson
Susan Herda
Kerri Liu
Katrina Strich
Intern
Guest Blogger
With the wave of movies appearing in 3D lately, I’ve asked myself if paying the extra cash is worth the extra dimension. Movies shot in 3D are nothing new, but every couple of decades or so the public seems to rekindle its love-affair. The first 3D movie – The Power of Love, presented to the masses in 1922 – may not have had sound, but it did have red/green dual strip projection of a young sea captain. Goood watchin’! There was then the “golden era” in the 50′s, and who could forget Jaws 3-D in the 80′s. Today’s advanced technology makes for a better quality 3D experience for moviegoers, such as Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and the highest grossing movie of all time, Avatar. Yet, even as hi-tech as it currently is, does 3D really make the movie better?
Some may argue that yes, if done well, 3D can enhance the overall experience of going to the movies. It makes it unique from just watching it on the small screen. Yet, with the new 3D televisions coming into the market, it may take the same path as High Definition. In 10 years will 3D tv’s be just as prevalent as HD ones are now? In the end, only time will tell.
But prevalence doesn’t equal value, in my opinion. That extra dimension can’t boost plot or character development. From what I’ve experienced, it almost seems as though directors are relying too much on the visual to carry the movie. (As a side note, I use the term “movie” to reference 3D rather than “film”, since most are more often summer blockbusters than Oscar contenders.) I think that Roger Ebert said it best in a recent article he wrote for Newsweek,
“I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy…I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing…”
It’s true that generally the people that are going to a 3D movie don’t necessarily want to be dragged into something that has a strong, potentially complex plot, but after so many times you can’t deny that the luster of the technique fades. It has become such the norm these days that I find that the more I see it, the less impressed I am, which in my book constitutes a gimmick. Sorry, moviemakers, your scheme is overplayed.
So, before I get even deeper into my rant, what do you think? Do you think that you’ll continue to shell out more money for objects to seemingly jump out or you, or will you put that extra to a box of Junior Mints?
We are looking at a new TV right now and the 3D feature doesn’t seem worth the extra cost. I’ve always thought of 3D as a gimmick and substitute for real plot. 3D movies are great, but on your TV at home? Don’t think so.
I’d compare 3D movies to pop-up books. There’s nothing like a really intricate pop-up book. They’re not necessarily for kids, they’re for someone who wants to take a break from the norm, sit back, and enjoy something fanciful. Pop-up books are an experience. That’s how I felt about Avatar. Did I go see it in 3D? Oh yeah! Because I knew that would be best the best way to experience it.
But I wouldn’t want all books to be pop-ups. Textbooks shouldn’t be pop-ups, neither should Cormac McCarthy. It’s a medium that is amazing when used well and enjoyed for what it is. I’d shift those sentiments onto 3D. Would Top Gun have been cool in 3D? Probably. Would Blade Runner? Not so sure. Citizen Kane? I’d say no.
Superior way to gimmick.