My exposure to 3-D goes back years. My Dad was always affiliated with clients that owned movie theaters so as a kid I got to see a lot of revivals of old 3-D movies (It Came From Outer Space being one that I remember). These movies always seemed to be perfectly ordinary films until someone threw an axe or pie or something to try and make the audience jump. It did nothing for me then. It does nothing for me now.
In the 1980's Disney came out with a real good 3-D system for use in their parks. First with Magic Journeys then with Captain EO, and later with attractions like MuppetVision 3-D, Honey, I Shrunk The Audience and It's Tough To Be A Bug, Disney made 3D real. For the first time, a character would fly out in front of you and you'd think they were right over the head of the guy in the next row. Really spectacular stuff... except that after 30 minutes or so of this I would have such eye-strain that tears would be flowing out of my eyes. As much as I loved the effect, I had to wonder what damage it was doing to my vision.
So when James Cameron, et al, decided to start experimenting with 3D films again, I assumed they had developed a way to take the eye-strain out the new 3D process that Disney had developed to create REAL 3D films. What a great idea. But then, they also started charging ridiculous amounts of extra money to see these 3D films.
Finally, last week, I managed to snag a free ticket to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D. The film, while being well made, was actually kind of boring. But I didn't really care because I was mostly there to review the 3D effects.
First, the good news... there was no eye-strain. I sat through the entire film with dry eyes and no headaches.
Second, the bad news... the 3D effects were lousy. They weren't as bad as the old House of Wax gimmicky 3D of the past, but they weren't Disney Attractions quality either. They were somewhere in between in what I could only describe as the kind of 3D effect you get looking at a View Master. For this, I would have had to pay an extra $3 per ticket.
Now, to be fair, I didn't see Avatar in 3D and the descriptions I heard were that the effects were amazing. So perhaps Cameron has developed true Disneyland 3D for films (which would probably cause the eye-strain). But shouldn't all 3D quality be the same before Hollywood jumps all over the 3D bandwagon?
I remember seeing my first surround sound movie - Super Mario Brothers - and being impressed by the sound for about ten seconds. Then I realized that this gimmick was going to cause ticket prices to go up so that movie makers could afford to put surround sound on Woody Allen movies. Now, I think the same thing is going to happen again with 3D... and quite frankly, I don't need to see or hear Woody Allen in 3D or surround sound.
Jerry Bruckheimer was recently asked if the Prince of Persia movie or the next Pirates of the Carribean would be in 3D and he responded that 3D wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if the story wasn't compelling to the audience. That guy is one smart cookie. So, I for one am hoping that this trend for 3D movies dies a quick death. I don't want to pay extra for a gimmick that doesn't improve the theater going experience in the slightest way.
2 comments:
Here is the problem with 3D. Humans already see in 3D. The theater and screen are all perceived in three dimensions. Our mind knows that the image on the screen is in two dimensions. We subconsciously rebel against the glasses because we know that the reality is distorted. Hence the eyestrain.
Cheers.
Uhhh....whatever Randall just said.
But seriously, I'm with you on this - 3D ultimately is a gimmick. It's still all about the story, and if the story is lame, who cares what the film looks like?
Post a Comment