Since the success of James Cameron’s film “Avatar” this past Christmas, it seems as though many studios have latched on to 3-D special effects to pull in audiences and have them pay extra to strap on plastic glasses.
Film-goers pay $3 to $5 more to feel like they are inside the movie, but as the craze continues, you might ask yourself, “Do I really want to see everything in 3-D?”
While some films like “Avatar,” even mesmerized skeptics such as myself, I’m not alone in hating it when directors try to use the 3-D effect just to have items thrown at the audience.
I prefer to keep my extra cash for another slurpee from the concession stand, then use it to support “Clash of the Titans,” which was originally filmed as a 2-D movie, but was forced to change to compete with other 3-D films like “How to Train your Dragon.” Highly anticipated films like “Alice in Wonderland” and “Clash of the Titans” would have still been successful, even if they remained 2-D as the directors originally filmed them, but instead studios had to tack on the extra dimension, just to follow the trend, and the money, of the 3-D craze.
I think studios completely overlooked the content of the films and how they appeal to different audiences before they decided to drive up the ticket cost for audiences that week.
This is a sign that we should not sacrifice the plot of the movie for the sake of an extra dimension. In an article published by the LA Times entitled “Popularity of 3-D is affecting how screenplays are written,” reporter Steve Zeitchik interviewed several big-time directors and screenwriters who said they also think that studios are getting out of hand and now feel obligated to incorporate 3-D moments every eight to ten pages of their script just to have the studios consider it for production.
The writers of the “Sherlock Holmes” sequel, Kieran and Michele Mulroney even said they have to rethink sequences in the film to make sure things pop out or jump at audiences as they negotiate with Warner Bros about the film.
“I fear that if every movie becomes spectacle for the sake of spectacle, where does that leave the intimate conversation across the dinner table?,” Kieran Mulroney said in the LA Times article.
Even when one of the creators of the “Saw” franchise, Marcus Dunstan, was asked about making the next installment to the series in 3-D, he even seemed a bit squeamish in his response to reporter Steve Zeitchik.
“Watching someone get punched repeatedly in the eye is going to be nauseating in 3-D,” Dunstan said.
This leads me to the next point: not all film genres lend themselves to 3-D, and studios shouldn’t try to force the application as they did with “Clash of the Titans.” Action, suspense and sometimes horror can use 3-D, but for films like “Shutter Island,” if the effect was used it could’ve distracted audiences from the plot. Concerning comedies or dramas, well I hope studios just don’t even try.
According to another LA Times article entitled “3-D Hollywood’s latest hot trend,” 19 films will be released in 3-D this year compared to five in 2008, and it can be expected that more will ensue.
I’d like to think that most people can see beyond the red and blue lenses and realize that this is just a gimmick to have audiences pay more for films that try to use special effects to make up for a bad story.