Did you were the3D glasses during the halftime commercial for Monsters vs. Aliens, Sobe, and Chuck?I didn't, and it wasn't because I didn't know about it, or because I didn't know where to find glasses, or any other reason.
No, it's because I don't care.
I think I have a deep underlying bias to 3D.
I think that the novelty of 3D is only so impressive to a point, and after you've experienced the flying monkey in your face, the laser beam shooting along side your head, and the explosive debris headed towards you, the novelty is gone.
In fact, it becomes anticipatable. You see a jar of bugs, and someone opening it...brace yourself for the bugs to fly towards you.
Unfortunately, it seems that with digital technology 3D is easier than ever, and so more and more films are available in a 3D format.
A handful of co-workers (with bad film taste) found themselves getting excited about seeing the recently released film My Bloody Valentine. These people were excited about the movie because it was in 3D, but found themselves in theaters with non-3D versions.
Their "reviews" and "assessment" of the film was that it was horrible, BUT if they had seen it in 3D it would have been much better.
Much better? NO. I think 3D will always be a gimmick, and as long as you have to wear glasses, and stories are built around "what can pop out a you" the stories are not elevated by this device.
I'm not opposed to the third dimension, but when it comes to film and television it's a one trick pony.
11 comments:
I have to disagree with you, friend. Granted, My Bloody Valentine and the superbowl stuff was nothing more than gimmicks. However, my opinion of what 3D is good for changed dramatically after I saw Monster House in 3D.
The kids movie was excellent on its own, but in 3D, they had a handful of the same 3D exploits, but most of all it was used to create genuine depth and space throughout the movie. It added a great deal to the experience beyond gimmicks.
My opinion has changed since then. I don't think it's any different than any other special effects. Just because it's usually abused for stupid reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't have legitimate potential.
Have to agree with William on this one. 3D may be used most often as a gimmick, but that doesn't mean it has to be. I stay away from them simply because I know that most (if not all up to this point) use it as a gimmick, but I look forward to the day when I can say that movie benefits from 3D usage in the same way that an animated movie benefits from experienced animators.... the story would be the same either way, but the added oomph(!) takes it one step further in a better direction...
After the fourth or fifth ad for Chuck (get your 3d glasses ready!), I looked at my wife and said, "Where exactly are we supposed to get them?" She said, "I was wondering the exact same thing."
While 3-D can be a gimmick, it can also add a lot to the film.
I saw MY BLOODY VALENTINE in 3-D in the theatres. Even though I'm not much of a horror fan, I found it to be one of the most entertaining films I've seen in a while. The 3-D added greatly to the film "experience". Yes, the film in 2-D was nothing much. But the 3-D made it fun.
With Pixar and James Cameron making their next films in the format, it will be interesting to see how it changes the medium.
Part of the problem with much of 3-D is, as your photo demonstrates, the belief that it is just those cardboard red and blue glasses. Theatrical 3-D now involves plastic silver glasses that are a much higher quality.
They still have yet to solve 3-D on DVD. In the past couple weeks, I've reviewed a couple new 3-D films on DVD. One worked, and one didn't. Once they solve the home viewing problem, I think it could become a lot more than a gimmick.
Last night, the TV show, "Chuck" was in 3D and they told you during the Superbowl to keep your glasses for it. We didn't have any so yesterday afternoon I headed up to the store to get some. They were all out so someone must love 3D. I can take it or leave it. I blogged during the show.
I liked 3-D in the old movies, like Creature From the Black Lagoon and House of Wax. But since the Fifties I don't think it has really worked. And I definitely think it is something only meant for the big screen. What I saw of Chuck last night didn't work for me.
apparently i'm out numbered by show of the comments here.
it sounds like there is some home out there for the medium, as well as some favorite 3-D experiences.
MOVIEZZZ mentioned the glasses...I think one of the problems...even with the modern plastic dark lensed glasses is that you still have to wear the glasses...and if it's feature length, they feel like they have to make everything have strong 3D effects the entire time...building a feature length story about what can "pop out at you" is very limiting.
WILLIAM PETRUZZO mentioned it's like other special effects...the difference to me though is largely in the fact that you have to have the glasses on your face to experience the effect.
The concept of home viewing 3D is an interesting idea discussed here. I wonder if the effort to translate 3D to the TV will continue. Obviously it was a big part of this years superbowl ad-push, so who knows? I wonder what the marketing execs think about their efforts?
I am hoping to get some 3-D glasses today from a daughter of a friend who took like 30 pairs from the display (SoBe). THEN, I am going to watch Chuck with them (DVR)THEN I am going to wear them ALL DAY tomorrow.
I hope your co-workers do not read your blog, RC (or are they resigned to having poor film taste)?
I've sort of felt that 3-D should be kept for B-movies and theme park rides. Sharkboy and Lava Girl cemented that for me. Let's see if Avatar (which IS in three-dee, right?) changed my mind.
Coraline, Monster House, and The Polar Express were amazing 3-D achievements.
Beowulf, not so much.
Post a Comment