The Story

Of Course a Movie’s Better if it Includes Stuff Flying at Your Face

Dec. 4, 2010 | By Ross Kingston, DSJ Staff Columnist

Those of you who have visited Orlando Studios at one point or another may recall an attraction called �"Terminator 2: 3D.” For those of you who haven’t seen it, it’s exactly what the name says, except by no means the entire movie, just a segment of it.

I witnessed this when I was 10 years old and it was my first 3D experience. At the time, I thought it was awesome. I realized that 3D technology was improving rapidly and that it was only a matter of years until Hollywood gave into the allure of shooting everything they could in 3D. I couldn’t wait; I thought entertainment was headed for a golden age. Now, a decade later, the irony of this makes me chuckle.

We often look back on our youth and laugh at ourselves. �"How could I have ever thought that was cool?” we ask. Yet I don’t want to reprimand the 10-year-old me. My excitement was rational. My error in judgment came not out of a mischaracterization of 3D’s potential, but rather the way it would be put to use, and therefore the staying power of its appeal.

3D movies have actually been around for several decades, believe it or not. It wasn’t really until a few years ago, though, that they became omnipresent. 2010, more so than any year preceding it, has been the age of the 3D movie.

I consulted The Movie Times 2010 page to help me recall what films I’ve seen in theaters this past year. I was shocked at how many of them had been 3D: Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender, Prince of Persia, and, of course, Saw 3D. Obviously I knew the latter was in 3D (just look at the title) yet somehow that fact had eluded me for the others.

When I saw Avatar, I really did feel immersed in the film. That could have been for a few reasons: 1. it had been a long time since watching anything in 3D, 2. they really put a lot of effort into the 3D effects, or 3. it was simply a very well done piece, visually. Looking back at what I saw in theatres this year, the two films that really drew me in where Shutter Island and Inception, neither of which was in 3D.

If 3D cameras are so damn expensive to use, then this recent trend begs the question: why are we relying on them so much now?

The obvious answer from a Hollywood executive would be something like the following: �"It immerses the audience in the film and allows for a more interactive experience.” But I think one of my friends put it best the other night as we left the cinema after the last Saw: �"I don’t really get the bloody point of the 3D; just kind of gives you a headache, doesn’t it?”

It was a very simple observation, yet very profound. Talking to people about movies over the course of the past year, I’ve noticed a definite trend: an increasing irritation with 3D films.

In fact, I would submit that 3D is becoming somewhat of a joke on the national stage. �"What’s next,” people quip, �"Romantic comedies in 3D? Documentaries?” The thing is, though, their comments don’t seem too far off the mark.

Alice in Wonderland is an especially interesting case to me, and one that I think best exemplifies the current state of fixation Hollywood has with this technology. Apparently the film was made to be a normal 2D movie originally, and then was edited after the fact to put in 3D material. This seems to indicate that the perception in Hollywood is that making a movie 3D will bring in a lot more cash. Maybe this is the case; I don’t know. The issue, though, is that this means movies will be made 3D whether the director thinks it actually adds value or not.

The Harry Potter franchise obviously needs no new gimmicks to rake in the cash, yet the last installment, The Deathly Hallows, was set to be 3D. Warner Brothers, not wanting to delay the film’s release, cancelled the 3D rendering, but upon viewing the film there are a few instances where it’s evident the effects were intended to be put in. I have to say, I was very impressed with the movie and consider it the best adaptation from any of the books in the entire series. After leaving the theater I thought about those aborted 3D scenes. I realized that even though Nagini didn’t jump at my face as was intended, this in no way detracted from the movie’s worth, nor would it have added value to it if the movie had otherwise been bad.

For me, what the 3D trend amounts to is this: Americans have been in love with the Cinema for 90 years and that isn’t about to change. We’ve gone almost a century being enraptured by films without the aid of 3D technology, and we don’t need it now. Movies, action films in particular, will still be riveting if done properly, and they’ll still suck if done poorly. Having crap fly at the audience won’t make or break a movie. Certain films (i.e. The Matrix) could legitimately benefit from 3D, but on the whole, it’s just a waste of the studios’ time and money and a mild irritant for the audience.

Ross Kingston is a staff columnist for the DSJ. His views do not necessarily represent those of the entire staff.