Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Suck My Ass 3-D Part 1: Movies

It seems like every 30 years or so, 3-D seems to make some sort of comeback. Originally started in the 50s/60s era as a cheap gimmick for matinees and cheesy horror flicks, the 3-D format saw a resurgance of sorts in the 80s, once again being in assorted horror films. Whether it was "Friday the 13th: Part 3 (D)" or "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare", the technology remained the same: using cheap paper cut-out glasses that utilized the effects of light being bent in whatever fucking direction...nevermind I have no idea how it really works, and nor do I really care, but let me get back on track here...

Here we are in 2010, and once again 3-D has reared its ugly head. No longer exclusive to just the horror genre, but 3-D has integrated itself into children's films, science fiction flicks, and even action movies. James Cameron's "Avatar" found the director utilizing new 3-D technology that he himself had spent the past decade plus developing, with the end result being the film becoming the highest-grossing movie to ever see the light of day (don't forget that ticket prices for seeing a 3-D flick in an IMAX theater however will run you about 20 bucks or so depending on where you live, but that's another topic entirely).

The end result for me personally after seeing it in theaters in 3-D: I thought my eyes were going to bleed and eventually explode out my fucking head!

Anyway, sometimes 3-D isn't all that bad depending on how well it gets utilized. A key example would be last year's "My Bloody Valentine 3-D", which not only featured some great visual gags, but like "Avatar", featured the whole film in 3-D and not just certain segments. One film that definitely suffered for the worse thanks to 3-D was the recent "Clash of the Titans" remake, which was never filmed with the intention of 3-D effects, but was decided to be integrated during post-production in an effort to drive up ticket sales after the studio realized just how bad the film was in general. The end result was the film as a whole looked just plain awful in 3-D, and the 3-D effects were so poorly utilized that you'd be better off watching the original "Blob" with the shitty little green and red glasses on.

What I'm trying to get at here in general is that 3-D at its heart is no more than a gimmick, and it is quickly becoming an expensive gimmick at that. Is there really anyone clamoring to see more movies in 3-D? I can understand when something monumental, like say "Toy Story 3", is released to the masses and targeted not only for the appeal of children, but for the appeal of adults as well, utilizes it and ends up taking it to a greater effect. Then again, that's just Pixar for you, who so far has never been able to do any wrong in my book.

While Pixar can do no wrong to me, there sure are plenty more than probably can in the not too distant future. Just over the horizon, we have "The Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan's "Inception", as well as "Saw VII", "Zombieland 2", the upcoming prequel to "Alien", and James Cameron's "Avatar" sequels as well as his stuck-in-development-hell adaptation of "Battle Angel". There are more 3-D planned movies as well, but for now, this is really all that I can mention without punching myself in the face in pure disgust.

3-D however isn't only limited to the movie realm anymore however. As technology continues to change and improve, we have now gotten to the point that 3-D needs to infringe upon the world of...video games!

Yes, video games in 3-D...but that's for next time folks...

Part 2 coming soon!

1 comment:

  1. Correction: "Inception" is in IMAX, not 3-D...bitches

    ReplyDelete