Post #3: Why, hopefully, 3D isn't here to stay

    Like the rest of this country, and this world, I went to see Avatar when it came out, keeping in mind James Cameron's self-proclamation of his being the "Bringer of Avatar," as if he were simply the vessel for some greater form of idea; as well as the bad, gimmicky 3D precursors.  I walked out of the movie fairly impressed, it certainly takes a thick wallet and big scope to pull of a monster like Avatar, but i still feel the same way I did before: 3D isn't going to be the next wave of animation or film making, because the intent is just not the right one.

    There was a so called "golden era" in the 1950's, during which a succession of cheap thrills amazed audiences everywhere, as it was something that no one had ever seen before.  This era eventually ran its course, and 3D was buried again, to be raised periodically in an attempt to pull in some cash (usually effectively).  The 1980's saw another jump in it's use, often in an attempt to beat the dead horse of some franchise.  One of the first, bad 3D attempts to claim a large franchise was Jaws 3-D.  

                  

 

    This movie was simply atrocious, a shameless use of the spotty technology that was 3D.  The plot was bad, the dialogue was worse, and the use of 3D was blatant and not really that good in the first place.  Unfortunately, this same sentiment of 3D is one that so called pioneers cling to in every iteration that has hit the big screen.  Lord knows, poorer and less whored out film makers can't and won't afford the huge price tag 3D carries.

                                    
 
 

    Since 1983, when Jaws 3D came out, none of the resulting films have been much better; Spy Kids 3D, Final Destination 3, My Bloody Valentine, and most recently Avatar, and the soon to be released Alice in Wonderland.  I will admit, Avatar wasn't terrible, and Tim Burton usually does pretty well in any venture, but none have been "groundbreaking," in anything but look.  Here's why 3D isn't going to break down any doors when it supposedly brings a new wave of movie magic.

1) Cost- Unless you're James Cameron and happen to have millions lying around from your previous epic, 3D isn't that viable a visual option, at least not a quality one.  Without major studio backing or a deep pocket at the start, most directors aren't going to opt for the 3D way of doing things.  True, original animation was fairly pricey at the start, but it soon picked up in popularity, style, and quality.  3D, on the other hand, has been fairly stagnant in terms of how long it's been around versus how much it's improved.  

2) Mindset- 3D film makers don't seem to be in it for the right reasons.  3D has remained a gimmicky, mess, with shrapnel and characters flying towards the screen in a cheap attempt to get some gasps or laughs.  Avatar claimed to do this, but all it really did was recycle a pretty standard plot line and set of character tropes, trying to take the gimmick out of 3D all the while.  Call me hard to please, but I just don't feel like dialogue or story are optional parts of movie making.  There've been  enough fantastic films, animated and not, that ranking a movie above them, simply because of a new form of special effects is a tragedy.  Many great directors will never succumb to this way of doing things, and because of this split in quality, 3D will always be on the side of the rich, not the real visionaries.

3) Exclusivity-  3D just doesn't work for everyone, for a variety of reasons.  Some people just don't like to wear the glasses because it makes their eyes hurt.  Some, like me, do it because they refuse to buy in to it or because they haven't been impressed so far.  Some people are blind in one eye, or have another visual impairment that makes it so the 3D effect physically doesn't work for them.  Whatever the reason, 3D films are not as universal as other family films or animated works, and, I hope, will fizzle out sooner rather than later. 

    I commented on Myca Taylor's and Katherine Danoy's blogs.

Comments

[Chuck Soo-Hoo]

I agree too that 3D is just a gimmick and a desperate cheap excuse to make money off their horrible films. It is just a fad that comes back every now and then. Where I have not seen Avatar and hear great things about it I have seen Jaws 3D. That notorious scene where you see Jaws swimming towards the main characters in that underwater lab with the giant glass was hilarious. Especially, if you don't watch it with the 3D glasses. 3D will probably eventually die out in a matter of time but possibly reemerge to the surface a few decades from now. To me, 3D only works at a few theaters and a few theaters only. They're called Universal Studios and Disneyworld. It's great because it enhances the experience while your seat is moving all over the place! If "My Bloody Valentine" and "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" was like that I would understand why those films made money.

[katherinesays]

Ha, this is a great post! I hate 3-D movies!! I just never got into them...probably because I never liked creepy villains or swords right in front of me. Seems like the directors aren't fans of personal space! I especially didn't like the movies that shook your seat around like you're flying around in it. If you have to put on a seat belt to watch a movie, it can't be good.

[Jacob Finch]

James Cameron IS God

[Siouxheil]

3D, as it stands now, wont become a trend...but when 3D technology becomes available to the public as a consumer product (i.e. TV's that don't require 3D glasses but stands alone in providing a depth of field that mimics 3D reality) I can see 3D becoming a standard. However, this will probably require new strains of cameras, just as CinemaScope and Technicolor required somewhat ridiculous equipment and developmental processes. Audiences said the same thing about moving pictures, then sound on film. The idea that movies will never evolve past 2D projections limits the potential of an art form that is constantly incorporating new technology in order to remain original and all that jazz.