Rant... IN 3D!!!!

[Kara]

Yesterday, I read that both Ghostbusters 3 and Gremlins 3 will be 3D. Today it was announced that the Deathly Hallows movies will be in 3D, and that Clash of the Titans (which I have no interest in seeing anyway but that's beside the point), a movie that has already been made, will have its release date pushed back so that it can be converted to 3D. The next Saw will be in 3D (not to mention life-support). Every goddamn movie that comes out now is. The next Jackass will be 3D. I'm not making that up. It's like, "hey, Jackass is great and all but you know what would be epic? Having Steve-O's balls coming at you in 3D." And the studio was like, "You had me at Steve-O's balls!"

Anyone else remember Jaws 3D? How about Friday the 13th part 3D? Amittyville 3D? When in the bleeding blue hell did 3D go from being a hokey gimmick to something that will make or break a film? When did they pass a law declaring that all movies shall henceforth be presented in the third dimension? Why does it matter?

I mean, I guess it looks neat, but does it really make the movie better? I suppose that tricking the eye into thinking the explosion is happening 2 inches from your face will help to hide the fact that the movie itself blows goats. No, wait. Freddy's Dead was still one of the worst movies in the franchise (and that's saying A LOT). A shitty movie would still be shitty regardless of how many dimensions it's in. For example, the Matrix Revolutions 3D still would have been a crap-tastic shambling mess leading up to a blatant DBZ ripoff. 3D visuals do not make up for a 1D plot. The same goes for a good movie. Throwing crap at the screen isn't going to change that.

It's not like the CGI revolution here. CGI actually has a purpose. It doesn't necessarily make a movie better, and yes, they do think that overloading the film with special effects and CGI characters makes up for a weak story (I'm looking at YOU Mr Lucas). Let's face it, the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies could never have even come close to depicting what was in our imaginations as we read the books without CG wizardry. Not that animatronics or miniatures shouldn't still be utilized to some degree. Clash of the Titans just won't be the same without the great Harryhausen skeletons. I'm glad to see that there will be a new Gremlins, but I can already assume that they will be CG rather than puppets, and I don't know if it will still feel the same.

Avatar is a good example. It's like, the most successful movie ever. Why? I don't know, I haven't seen it. It looks okay, but I'm not too interested in it based on the trailers and reviews I've seen. But is it successful solely based on the fact that it's in 3D? No, of course not. But the Hollywood equation is "If film + gimmick = $$$, then ALL films + gimmick = $$$ FOREVER."

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe after a decade or two the films of the last few years won't feel as cheesy as the 3D movies of the 80's and/or 50's do today. I'm just getting really fed up with seeing "IN 3D!!!" tacked on at the end of every film trailer like it's supposed to make me all warm and tingly.

[Broomjockey]

I'll tell you why it's like this. The 3-D glasses they use in theatres aren't like the 3-D glasses they use at home. They won't even work on current TVs, far as I know. This means that if you want the "3-D experience" you need to see it in theatres. It's a direct stab at trying to get people back in to theatres instead of using Netflix or downloading it. They're trying to provide something that you can't get anywhere else, since apparently the big screen isn't enough anymore (and with a lot of people having 40" and up TVs, they're right).

[Dreamstalker]

GB3 in 3-D? I'd heard that, and am not totally sure what I think about it (then again, I haven't seen a hell of a lot of 3D movies). Isn't Sony or somebody coming out with a television that can emulate 3D? I'm not even sure the 80's movies would hold up to the treatment that well.

Now VR/holodeck-esque versions...that would be awesomesauce but I really don't think the technology is there yet.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm personally just waiting for the announcement of the latest Broadway musical: Avatar: The ULTIMATE 3-D Experience. It's like you're actually there, because you are!!!

This is precisely the reason I'm so ticked that James Cameron is going to walk away with an Oscar. Again. Craptastic, overused plot but ooooooh it's pretty.

[cinema guy]

Oh yeah. 3d is the in thing. It is partly responsible for the UK cinema industry's biggest year ever. And of course Avatar has become the biggest grossing movie of all time.

As well as redoing the Toy Story movies in 3d, Disney's Beauty and the Beast will be redone. Apparently the technology exists to scan objects in a film frame, size then and 3d-ify them. It is easier to do with cgi animation, but live action films may follow.

And Jaws 3d, Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, and all the other 80s attempts to re-start 3d, YUK!

[Dreamstalker]

at an Avatar musical. Part of me just knows that's going to be pitched someday...

[ArcticChicken]

Isn't Sony or somebody coming out with a television that can emulate 3D?

Actually, there are already a few on the market, even one you don't need the glasses for.

Part of the reason everything is in 3D these days is that the technology is a million times better than it was in the 80's. It drives me crazy that people are allowing 3D to carry a movie instead of actual, y'know, plot. But soon enough people will tire of the gimmick and Hollywood will settle back into making decent movies.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's a direct stab at trying to get people back in to theatres instead of using Netflix or downloading it.

They could always try selling alcohol in cinemas instead.

3-D; I can take it or leave it. They should at least give you the option; have two showings for with and without.

[HYHYBT]

It's not that the 3D will make or break a movie, unless it was borderline to begin with, but it's not like there haven't been precedents other than CGI, either. It's happened over and over in the history of film: some technological advance makes the experience a bit better or more realistic. At first, people will go see anything using it just to see it, but as it becomes cheaper, better, and/or more practical, its use spreads and eventually anything *not* using it is outdated regardless of its quality otherwise.

A partial list:
*Synchronized sound recording (talkies): virtually everything made in the last 80+ years.

*Color: First, just a few that really needed it or had big budgets; but also an advantage movies had over their first serious competition: the television. And once the level of color programming on TV, and the number of color sets being watched, reached a point, *everything* had to be in color to keep people from switching to something that was, but it wasn't necessary from a storytelling point of view.

*Stereo sound, and later surround sound: Again, first in movie theaters. Makes some types of movie feel more realistic, but adds nothing at all to others. But again, once it got started, every theater had to have it to keep their customers, and then every movie had it because it was in the theaters. And then in the mid-80's it suddenly hit television, and again, though very little programming actually benefits from it (usually only that containing large amounts of either music or explosions) suddenly everything had to have it. Was their a point to stereo sound on "The Cosby Show" or "Family Feud," other than the networks being able to say they had it?

*Widescreen: again, first an advantage to movie theaters over television. Some of them quite literally stretched it too far... but it took forty years or so for TV even to begin letterboxing, and about ten more for the first widescreen sets to appear. Even now, widescreen programming is almost always designed so there's nothing important in the extra space, simply because it's cut off for so many viewers.

*HDTV. Again, it doesn't really make a difference for many purposes, especially for what used to be normal-sized screens seen from what used to be normal distances. Actually, nice as it is when you're watching it, I would appreciate it if they would make onscreen graphics with the assumption that the viewer will be watching in SD; for example, the other day they were showing the returns for the MA senate race, and the line showing the percent that had been counted was totally unreadable in SD, even on a 60" screen. And what does high definition really add to, say, "The Price Is Right," other than showing off how badly they needed to repaint some of the sets?

3D is just the next thing. It's been around in one form or another for a while, but it's only now getting to the point that it's good enough, and convenient enough, to be used for more than just startling viewers now and then with a poke in the eye. I hope they don't revisit the idea of Smellovision any time soon, though. Now THERE'S something that should only be used sparingly, no matter how widespread and cheap the technology becomes!

Edit: When 3D television becomes common, they absolutely *have* to make it watchable while moving around and without the glasses. If that means being able to turn the feature off, fine. But surely they're not stupid enough to kiss off the large-and-growing audience that has the TV on while doing something else.

[trailerparkmedic]

I went to see Avatar in 3D Imax. It really was amazing to see it in 3D, though my motion sickness acted up so I watched the long epic (Boring!) final battle without my glasses.

For the cost, it was kind of worth it. I'll have to see Deathly Hallows in 3D because I'm a Harry Potter fanatic, but I doubt I'll routinely spend twice the money for the same movie unless it's something else I'm looking forward to seeing.

[Broomjockey]

3-D; I can take it or leave it. They should at least give you the option; have two showings for with and without.

Avatar did that. Monster House did that ages ago, too, I believe.

They could always try selling alcohol in cinemas instead.

They've already done that too. Unfortunately in North America, it didn't fly too well in most of the test markets. Not only does it create issues in trying to make sure no one takes beer in to cinemas with children, and drunk patrons are more likely to do everything you already hate about going to the movies, but riddle me this:

How old is the average theatre worker? Usually high school age. Most places with a drinking age also require you be that age just to serve it. All of a sudden, you need to schedule the older staff members in the evenings so they can serve the alcohol (a not desirable time and a not desirable job). So, you then lose the older staff members because they liked the matinee showings they were working, since all the teens were in classes.

[trailerparkmedic]

They could always try selling alcohol in cinemas instead.

My favorite movie theater: http://www.drafthouse.com/

They serve beer & wine, real food, kids under 18 must be accompanied by a parent and no kids under 6 (except for baby day and certain kids movies).

There's not a ton of similar movie places out there, but there's a few here and there if you look.

[dalesys]

at an Avatar musical. Part of me just knows that's going to be pitched someday...

They'll have to be sharp, or it will fall flat...
And how will they make it look natural?

[Kara]

They put up a new theater not too long ago (the first Spider Man opened as their first movie). There is one theater that has a 4-story screen and a balcony. Balcony seats are for ages 21+ only, because you can get anything from the restaraunt in the lobby, including alcohol. I've never been in the balcony because tickets are like $30, but supposedly you just push a button and summon a waiter to get you a refill on your popcorn, or a steak, or whatever.

The thing that is killing the theater industry is the skyrocketing price of tickets and concessions. I mean it's like, what, $10-12 for a movie ticket nowadays? Yeah, I could go see a movie. Oh, what's that? You want to go too? Popcorn you say? Now we're probably at like, $50.

Or I could wait a little bit and it will be out on Special Ultimate Platinum Super Kickass Limited Collector's Edition DVD with 500 hours of bonus material, scenes not shown in theaters, commentaries, a blooper reel, and a sneak preview of the sequel for $15-20. Seriously, it's like three months now for a film to go from theatrical premiere to DVD. No amount of 3D is going to sway me to go to the cinema, because it just costs too damn much for 90 - 120 minutes of entertainment. A decade and a half ago, when you had to wait 9 months to a year for a movie to come out on video, sure. You HAD to go see all the big films in the theater. But now it doesn't take that long and we have the internet to entertain us while we're waiting.

[lordlundar]

They've already done that too. Unfortunately in North America, it didn't fly too well in most of the test markets.

Pretty sure the multiplex in WEM still does, but you cannot take any alcohol from the designated area or get thrown out. Not sure though, as I don't go during peak times.