Is it entirely necessary for almost every film to be filmed in 3-D?
Sure, I understand how 3-D is cool and sometimes it can add to the film. But it’s just ridiculous how films are filmed in both 3-D and 2-D now, or hastily reformatted to be 3-D right before the release date. Filming in both formats makes the entire process more expensive and editing more difficult. And when they released in theaters, 3-D films are twice as expensive to see.
What’s more is that with the rise of 3-D films, it seems like the actual quality of films — being story and stylistic choices — is going down. I wish the next big fad would be really, really great and well-thought-out films rather than ridiculous 3-D movies.
It just seems like a gimmick to inflate box office numbers. I saw How to Train Your Dragon in both 3-D and 2-D. While I did appreciate the texture and the depth of the 3-D experience, I didn’t walk out of the 2-D viewing saying, “Wow, if only that had been in 3-D, I could have actually enjoyed it. Too bad.”
Sure, some films might chose to be shot in 3-D for thematic reasons, but that element of cinema is quickly losing value because every film is being released in that format. Pretty soon, it’ll be a treat to see a 2-D film. It’ll be charming — like going to a drive-in theater.
It’s an effect you’re always aware of, too. You know you’re going into a 3-D film, so you’re expecting all this “come out of the screen” stuff when really, you’re just getting some added texture and depth. The lame stuff coming out at you isn’t cool when it happens, it’s just something that makes you feel weird.
And yes, I saw Avatar in 3-D. I didn’t think it was necessary. Both seeing it and seeing it in 3-D. I said it. The message of “Capitalism sucks!” seems very confusing when you’re paying $20 to see it. But anyway, the 3-D didn’t do anything special for me. Avatar basically used 3-D for the landscapes. That’s all I really took away from the effect.
And the whole point of 3-D films is that they are shot to be seen in 3-D. So when you buy the DVD, you lose that effect. It defeats the whole purpose.
Some films that are shot in both formats just don’t work in one format or the other. If you see a movie that is intended to be 3-D but it still released in the normal way, there are all these shots that don’t make sense with heavy foreground stuff and crazy angles. And can any serious film be done in 3-D and taken seriously? Just think about it.
Oh, and by the way, James Cameron is planning on converting Titanic into 3-D. So a film that was shot in 2-D and stands pretty well on its own already is going to be changed into an entirely new format that probably won’t work very well with the technology of the time? Just for a few extra bucks? It’s already one of the top grossing films of all time, so is this necessary? Really? (No.) Look, James Cameron. We’ve all already seen it and we already knew the boat sank before we saw it. Adding 3-D isn’t going to make us pay to go see what comes on TV every other weekend.
Also, those glasses just don’t work over regular glasses. I find that inconsiderate, film industry. I don’t want to have to dress up and wear contacts to the movie theater just because you don’t think about people who have myopia. Another issue with the glasses is that they aren’t the awesome kind from the good old days with the red and blue.
And I feel like people just want to make 3-D films so that when the third installment comes out, they can say use the 3 in “3-D”.
I’m not saying some films can’t be in 3-D or anything, but I don’t think it should be so commonplace. I understand some films “need” the effect, but when the top films for the past three years have been almost all 3-D films, maybe it’s time to reassess. Films should be able to stand on their own without gimmicks that raise ticket prices.
