Search This Blog

Monday, May 30, 2011

3-D Sucks

*(I figure if I'm going to point out something that sucks, I should point out something else that sucks)*
Going to the movies is obviously an expensive proposition. Tickets in most places cost near or over ten bucks. All of that goes to the impoverished film studios, who sadly only make billions of dollars a year, and can only afford to pay their actors millions. Because of this, a twelve-ounce coke at the concession stand can often cost the same as a downpayment on a house, just so the theater can turn a profit. Thankfully though, there is a way that we can give the film studios even more of our hard-earned money and cheapen our film experience at the same time!
When I was a kid, there was this horrible movie called Jaws 3-D. It was the butt of jokes for a very long time, not only because it was terrible, but also because it cheaply attempted to use 3-D as a gimmick to attract audiences. Thankfully, soon after Jaws 3-D's release, 3-D fell out of favor again. The goofy glasses and the use of 3-D to distract from a film's badness became a running joke, much as I'm sure it did in the huge gap of prominent 3-D film releases between the 1950's and early 1980's.
Every now and then the major film studios, who are all tied into corporate media, concoct a news story about how their profits are down compared to some abstract point in time. The truth, of course, is that they are making more money than ever. They have also decided that 3-D is the gateway to more money, and that every big film has to be shown in 3-D now in order to maximize profits.
That's it: the reason that 3-D is so abundunt in theaters now is not audience demand or appreciation--it's because the studios can make more money. Look at the ridiculous amounts of money that Avatar made because of 3-D showings. Also, look at how I put a colon and a hyphen in the same sentence.
I don't really need to go into great depth about the problems with three-dee (that's how I will refer to it from here on out for absolutely no reason), so I will just make a quick lazy list:
1. Darkens and blurs the picture so that you can't really see everything that well, just the main point of focus in the frame if you're lucky.
2. Have to wear annoying glasses that just make you look and feel stupid and can give you a headache.
3. Have to pay even more money to watch the film.
4. Movies are called movies because they are "moving pictures." A picture is, by its very nature, flat. People have been enjoying "flat" movies for years to the point that "flatness" is intrinsic.
Anyway, there is a surefire way to get three-dee out of theaters: don't go. If you make a point to only attend 2-D features, the theaters will not make any money from three-dee films. I know I will be making a point to see the new Harry Potter in 2-D. If the theater makes no money from three-dee films, they will be forced to stop showing them. If they stop showing them, the studio won't make any money selling them, and will be forced to stop making them. Then we won't have to have this stupid conversation anymore until people forget again how much three-dee sucks 20-25 years from now. Of course, the world could end before then, and also, movies might not even exist anymore, but I don't like to think about the future because it makes me depressed.
Also, Roger Ebert wrote about this same thing a few days ago, except articulately, mainly focusing on how theaters neglect to remove the three-dee lens from the projector, thus ruining 2-D showing of films as well.

5 comments:

laurenthevampireslayer said...

YEAH!! The ONLY time 3-D is okay is when you are in Disney World and/or any related theme park.

2. Three-dee glasses ALWAYS give you a headache.

And what about IMAX? I'm only asking because I don't really remember what it is like to see anything in IMAX.

Nicholas said...

Yeah! That is the only time it is okay. That way you only wear the glasses for a few minutes. Plus, theme parks are supposed to be kind of cheesy, so it works.
I like IMAX and don't mind paying a few dollars more for it, if it is a big movie. Fast Five (which is still sitting right near 80% on Rotten Tomatoes a month after its release, which means it really is good and I'm not weird or crazy) was perfect for the format. It made the cars forty feet tall, but the picture was still crisp and nice and you didn't have to wear dork glasses. Just as long as only a few films do it every year so going to the movies doesn't always cost a grip.

buck09 said...

I literally just went and saw "Immortals" with my wife on opening day and low and behold it was offered in 3d at the time slot we showed up. Being like the second or third time we have been to the movies since the birth of our daughter and having two Costo movie passes it was a go. I passed the gift passes to the elderly man working the ticket booth and he sadly said its $26 and the passes were for the standard showing which is like $17 for a pair. He was generous and gave us the "senior" rate tickets. Anyways, to make a short story, shorter, I enjoyed the movie other than the 3d which was pretty lame. It gave me a headache and wasn't all that different from regular flAt screen. Although I agree that the flat version probably had more definition in it. So 3d I agree sucks. And who in their right mind would buy a 3D television set? I don't know, but those seem a little overboard and unnecessarily wasteful and expensive.

Nicholas said...

On top of everything, the glasses make people look like dorks. Why would you want to look like a dork in your own home?

buck09 said...

I do it all the time without the glasses. :)