I haven’t done a good rant in awhile, so here goes: Hollywood, for the love of God, stop making 3-D movies just for the hell of it!
Sure, some films are meant to be seen in 3-D, like Avatar. Regardless how you feel about the film, it really is a visual masterpiece when seen in 3-D, because it was made to be seen in 3-D. But then you have other movies that studios decide to make 3-D just because.
Greed is a major factor, of course, as the cost of each movie ticket increases for these stupid 3-D shows, where you’re forced to wear those awfully uncomfortable plastic and flimsy glasses (which is really pain for someone who already wears glasses), and for what exactly? So that when the pitcher throws a fast ball it comes right at the viewer’s head?
And because 3-D movies seem to be making a resurge, studios think they might as well make everything 3-D. Apparently the next Alvin and the Chipmunks will be in 3-D because, you know, the world not only needs a third Chipmunks movie but the annoying rodents must also look like they’re walking out of the screen.
Are the studios to blame for this recent phenomenon? Yes and no. They started it initially, but then moviegoers were stupid enough to buy a bunch of tickets and so the studios figured what the hell, we’ll just keep making more of this crap, and so they do.
Again, I have no issues with movies that are 3-D when they’re supposed to be 3-D, but making a film 3-D just for the hell of it is pointless and stupid. And, guess what, it just gets better and better:
Remember The Life of Pi? It’s been seven years since Fox 2000’s Elizabeth Gabler acquired the rights to Canadian Yann Martel’s Booker prize-winning 2001 global bestseller about a boy adrift in a lifeboat in the Pacific with a Bengal tiger. What’s taking so long? Well, this kind of lyrical literary material is tricky to get right. M. Night Shyamalan fell out. So did Alfonso Cuaron and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Finally, it may get made thanks to Ang Lee—and 3-D.
I was never a huge fan of the book to begin with — yeah, okay, it’s a story about a boy on a book with a tiger, blah blah blah — but the book was a big success so a movie version was inevitable.
But 3-D?
Come on, Hollywood, just give it a rest already. I’m begging you.
*****
Reminder that you have until tomorrow at midnight to enter the Hint Fiction Contest. Already more than 230 stories have been submitted, which is more than last year. Keep ‘em coming!
I agree totally, I think three can work great (Avatar) and not-so-great (The Final Destination).
But I do think that another big reason the big studios are making so many films in 3-D is because it’s practically impossible to make illegal copies of them.
That’s a good point, re: trying to avoid privacy. I wonder what will happen then when those new 3-D TVs are released, if that will make some kind of change.
this trend drives me nuts, too. i think it can also be distracting. sure, it’s nice as a completely colorblind person that there’s finally a 3-D technology i can see, but i feel like i end up paying more attention to the 3-Dness than the movie. plus it gives me a headache. and what about if i don’t want to wear my contacts? 3-D glasses don’t fit so well over my glasses.
also, why does 3-D have to become part of the title. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON IN 3-D, CLASH OF THE TITANS IN 3-D. that shit drives me nuts.
Didn’t this (rightfully) die in the 80s? Don’t get me wrong, it has its place in gimmicky movies that would be lame without it. But Jesus…yeah, this has already been done to death. My fear is that Nicholas Sparks will go this route…Nicholas Sparks Presents “We Fall in Love and Then One of Us Moves Away But the Power of Love Keeps Us Together and, Most Likely, Someone Gets Sick and Dies…IN 3-D!!!”