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.
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.
Comment