Now that every movie out seems to be in 3-D, I think it is time we addressed what that really means for one of America ’s favorite pastimes. I don’t know about every household, but in ours, movie money is always figured into our monthly budget. We go often, and we enjoy a wide range of films. Something I am not enjoying near as much as I thought I might is 3-D. First touted as the revolution of the movie going experience, 3-D now appears to be the standard for all big budget films. So far, I am not impressed.
After watching Alice in Wonderland in 3-D at the Tulsa IMAX Theater I left with a pounding headache. After reading various reviews and news articles on the subject of 3-D I have discovered that I am not alone. Headaches and eyestrain are a common factor in watching 3-D movies. This weekend I took my teenagers and two of their friends to see the new Fright Night movie and was completely disappointed with the 3-D aspect of it. The movie was far too dark for 3-D to be a plausible choice. I found myself lifting my glasses off to see if I could even make out the scene. Wearing dark 3-D glasses in a dark theater while watching a dark movie did indeed strain my eyes. The lighting or lack thereof, was such an issue that I feel like I really didn’t see the entire movie and I’m already planning on renting it to see what I missed.
Looking past the headaches, eyestrain, and reports of nausea, 3-D is also limited to only being effective in certain genres. While horror, action, and cartoon movies might do well in 3-D done correctly, I can’t foresee a drama being enhanced by 3-D technology. Take two of this years Oscar winners for example, The King's Speech, and Black Swan, would have seemed less effective in 3-D. Upon hearing that James Cameron plans on re-releasing Titanic in 3-D in 2012 I felt a pang of sadness. I wouldn’t mind watching Titanic on the big screen again but I feel that 3-D cheapens it.
With all the strikes against it 3-D, it is also more expensive. Even if it is only a few dollars, when you take those few dollars and times it by your family of four it adds up! I don’t want to pay extra to see a movie in a format that I am not even that big a fan of, but, like with Fright Night this past weekend, that was my only choice if I wanted to watch it at all. Converting from analog to digital has also been expensive for the theaters and that cost will of course always be passed on to the consumer.
Even Hollywood bigwigs come down on both sides of the issue. While James Cameron, director of the mega 3-D hit Avatar, sees the future in only 3-D other directors such as Christopher Nolan, director of the visually stunning blockbusters Inception and Dark Knight, see 3-D as having a long way to go before being an effective tool in movie making. No matter what side you land on eventually we will all vote with our pocket books and if 3-D doesn’t get a lot better real fast, I cannot see it as the future of movies.
