Even if we know that in the good ol’ days, movies cost a nickel, had no sound, no color, and you walked uphill both ways to see them, it is hard not to take our technology for granted. Now movies have definitely become more expensive — but they are also of a significantly higher quality, with incredible audio and visual effects. However, perhaps not all innovation is being used well — at least in the case of the ongoing movement toward 3D movies.
The main strength of film is that it creates a feeling of the story coming to life. A movie benefits from the fact that images are moving, that things make the sounds expected, thus removing some aspect of the suspension of disbelief. Being able to set movies in three dimensions seems to fit in perfectly with this striving for a simulation of real life, a new tool to make the films more realistic and therefore more rewarding. Yet, the best 3D I have personally seen has been in movies like “How To Train Your Dragon” — with incredible visuals used in the slight scenes and an animation style that lends itself well to a more cartoonish use of the third dimension — and while this is an amazing use of the art, and the result is beautiful, surely even more amazing 3D films should be on the horizon, right? I personally haven’t raised my hopes so high, due to the other 3D movies that I have seen. The greatest transgressions, so far, have been movie remakes or sequels which are the original Title of the Movie, plus the number 3 and the letter D in bold on the title. “Jaws 3-D” was a movie that utilized such a tactic, and was a poor sequel for such a famous franchise. Suddenly there is no need to be creative, or competent. All that is necessary is an idea that used to be good and a team of people to lazily make some moments more “intense” with it popping out of the screen for a few seconds. Suddenly that movie is much better — in the eyes of the company. Why? Because 3D film, for the public, face a considerable problem — expense. Is it really worth the extra money to watch a movie in 3D when you can get much the same experience — quite possibly better — at a cheaper cost in familiar 2D? At the moment, I just do not feel that there is reason to use 3D… and that’s not the viewing public’s fault. It currently seems that our producers, directors, and editing teams just don’t know what to do with a three dimensional plane for movies. Scenes are usually still shot around a two dimensional plane, so that 3D is just used occasionally for emphasis. This is by no means bad, but it can certainly seem sloppy, and be a sign of inexperience. In this early stage for three dimensional viewing, it simply isn’t being used correctly, and it is showing. Additionally, at the moment 3D has been shown to strain the eyes and can even leave one feeling sick if they’re particularly sensitive to such problems. When I have decided to forgo homework for another couple of hours I expect to enjoy it, not get a headache. At this time, 3D movies cost more to produce, cost more to see, and simply aren’t worth the extra dollars, except on some rare occasions. The effects often feel clunky and unrefined, and there’s little sign of improvement. Perhaps a movie will be built around this style soon, and we might actually see a 3D film worth the cost of admission. Until movie companies start taking our interests into consideration and build a film that should actually be seen in theaters, save your money.