The Third Dimension of Suck

Now that just about every film is being released in 3D, you would think that the inclusion of 3D would add something to movie-going experience. Sadly, this is not the case.

The only film I’ve seen in 3D that actually did it right was Avatar because, you know, it was built from the ground up to be watched in 3D.

Off the top of my head, here’s the list of films I’ve seen in 3D.

Thor – absolutely no need for 3D in this film. I re-watched it normally (or in 2D, if you want to be picky) recently and enjoyed the film significantly more.

Captain America –  3D? Where? I can’t remember a single scene being actually enhanced by watching it in 3D at all.

Tron: Legacy – All I can remember from Tron: Legacy was blurry fluoro lines occasionally and a bobble-head version of Jeff Bridges. Rocking soundtrack, though. I blame 3D.

Toy Story 3 – Fantastic film. 3D? Didn’t need it.

UP – Another fantastic film. But the 3D, if anything, was underutilized. I felt this was the only film outside of Avatar that could have benefited from a decent investment in 3D. Maybe the only reason I’m saying that 3D was underutilized in this film is because of how brilliant it is. If you were not close to howling like a banshee after the first 10 minutes, I suggest you go and find your soul.

Monsters vs. Aliens – Average film. Less-than-average 3D.

Alice in Wonderland – Decent enough film, but it looked gorgeous enough without 3D.

That’s 14 hours of my life that I’ve dedicated to sucktacular blurry vision, poorly rendered images and scattered refresh rates. Don’t step on my right to curmudgeon about this – that’s over half a day wasted.

And the first film I ever saw in 3D…. Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare. But see, I was no more than 10 years old and the 3D effect was the old-school red-and-blue pane glasses that you could have made at home if you really wanted to. And being no more than 10 years old, I was freaked the freak out by how images were coming towards me. I can’t remember much about the film itself, but it was probably garbage.

In those days at least they shot films for 3D. Now they’re just flagging post-production 3D on any film that a production company wants to make more money back than what the film is actually worth. The sad thing about some (not all) of the efforts on post-production 3D? It’s the simple check of a 3D filter box in video editing software. That’s it.

A tick in a box justifies an extra couple of bucks at the box office for an experience that is usually worse than watching the film as it was intended to be viewed. Thanks, greedy producers and fad-tastic film studio execs!

Who the hell would want to watch the new Conan the Barbarian in 3D? Or the Fright Night remake?

<insert segue here> I will be going to see The Lion King in 3D, because I want to see The Lion King on the big screen AND I want to see whether Disney actually invested in re-tooling the film for 3D. </end segue>

Another problem related to the 3D madness is the fact that now some films are being shot specifically for 3D. This means that if you watch them without taking advantage of the 3D ‘spectacle’ that awaits you, you’re going to end up watching a film with a lot of badly framed shots, awkward close-ups and strange effects that don’t give you any depth of field perception and ends up coming off as a poorly shot film.

Part of the appeal in watching movies, for me, is the sense of escapism. I don’t need to have things flung into my face to force a physical or emotional response out of me in order to engage me as a viewer. That’s what the script, pacing, acting, cinematography, sound design, editing and directing are all there to do. Draw me into your world, don’t draw your world for me.

The worst thing about this? Some multiplex cinemas not giving you the option of watching the film unless you see it in 3D. Dictating how a film should be watched is like waking up everyday and having someone tell you what pants to wear – one, you would tell that person to shut the fuck up and two, it should be your choice. The third option, of course, is to just do away with pants altogether.

This is not to say that 3D cannot have its place in cinema – it can. As long as movie studios are willing to invest the time and money in shooting the film from the ground up for 3D and NOT relying on cheap “Ooh! I can almost reach out and touch it!” effects to make the film more immersive.

The flow-on effect, of course, is that now you can buy 3DTVs for home viewing…

Why.

The.

Hell.

Would.

Anyone.

Want.

To.

Watch.

Everything.

In.

3D?

And to top it off, until they release glasses-free 3DTV (It’s coming, Toshiba had shown a prototype off at least a year ago) you’ve got to purchase glasses for every person that wants to watch TV at your house. Remember when you used to be able to invite friends over to watch a movie? Yeah…

Furthermore, how awkward would it look having a bunch of people sitting around a lounge room wearing glasses indoors? It strikes me as a bunch of people trying too hard to look cool would be hanging out in your lounge room. And nobody wants that.

3D technology has its place in one form of media, though. Video games. The reason for this is simple, you’re already interacting with the media as a user – that is, dictating what is occurring on the screen in front of you via an input method. Kind of like when you used to see people play Mario Kart on the SNES and believe that moving their entire body with the controller would somehow help their cause. Nope, that red shell is still going to hit you, chum, and I’m going to laugh my arse off every time.

Tomorrow’s rant… Dang it to heck, I really don’t know. Make some suggestions, people!