Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

3D Fading Out

This has nothing to do with Jurassic Park. These people actually died. 

At least, that's the question posed by the New York Times columnists Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply in their article published on May 29th, only two days ago.

For a link to the article itself, click here.

This is an editorial, and The New York Times is the only source I have for this. Except me. And, after interviewing myself for hours about this, I can safely tell you that I tired of 3D formatting just as quickly as it blew up. Yes, I still have a few pair of those ridiculous glasses that they require us to wear, and I still remember fondly watching Avatar. But, there's a difference between Avatar and most 3D movies. What is it? Avatar was actually made for 3D. It wasn't re-formatted because someone thought "Oh, this will drive up ticket prices be pretty cool."

More after the cut--

In fact, I remember my first 3D movie - Coraline. And, for those who don't know, I was so not impressed. But, others were. And 3D kept coming out in droves. My Bloody Valentine was remade and put into 3D. M. Night Shyamalan gave us The Last Airbender, and now, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Which, mind you... not doing so well on the 3D front.

Obviously, there are a ton more movies released between the ones I mentioned. Some got it right - Resident Evil: Afterlife, for instance. And How to Train Your Dragon. As well as Jackass 3D. Some that didn't get it? Look at the newest Harry Potter movies. Or Piranha. Or... hell, pick a movie out this weekend. Chances are, it'll be in 3D and the 3D will make the lighting incredibly dim and you'll have a hard time focusing your eyes. Why is it that I can say that? Because it's scientifically correct. It's just not meant to compute with our brains.*

*if it's not originally shot that way. Sorry, Avatar. I didn't mean to include you. 

Some things just aren't meant for 3D.

The scariest thing about it is Dennis Quaid.

And some things are. 

Like this.

Yes, that's a real movie that's in 3D. It's called Sex and Zen, and it's the world's first porno shot in the format. Why is this amazing and allowed to happen? Because it's the next step in advancing the format. We've had 3D video games, we've seen James Cameron movies in 3D, IMAX 3D is already around, and we've seen someone get puked on in 3D (thanks, Johnny Knoxville, for an image I'll never get out of my head). Logically, porn is the next step. And, of course the Asians get to it first. It's called 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy. I'm currently taking bets as to how long until someone in America remakes it. 

But, really, if we consider the argument against 3D, it all boils down to a few reasons. 

1. Ticket prices are jacked up about five-seven dollars per ticket. It gives bigger blockbusters a chance to edge out the little guy, and that's really just not fair. There isn't really a reason for those glasses made from cereal box materials to cost so much. 

2. It's too often. I'm making up this statistic, but nearly 80% of movies released these weekends are in 3D. Yes, that's a fake number. But, it feels like it to me, anyway. 

3(d?). There hasn't been anything new done with it since Avatar. Filmgoers are constantly looking for something new to catch their eye. And until we literally get to smell Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: At Wit's End, I'm thinking that the format might be so 2000-and-late. 

At least this'll be good news to Roger Ebert. 

I'm not calling for a moratorium on the format. Not at all. It's been put to staggeringly good use in the past, and I'm sure it will be again. I loved the 3D in Thor, don't you know. But, I'm asking for something new to be done with it. I'm also asking for better looking glasses. That don't cost seven dollars. 

That's not too much to want.