by Aaron Frias
3D Movies = Hollywood’s Biggest Gimmick
“Avatar 3D”. “Toy Story 3” in 3D. “Jackass 3D”. “Saw 3D”. Can you notice any kind of trend between these four recent movies? It’s not because they were all made in Hollywood. It seems too many movies these days are incorporating the use of third dimensional elements in order to make the illusion like something is “popping” out towards the audience. However, is this absolutely necessary to make the movie any better? Does not watching a movie in 3D hinder the entire experience of the movie? What about movies that were shot in 3D and advertise the hell out of the movie, showing off how incredible it’s supposed to be. (Perfect example is “Drive Angry” with Nicolas Cage, which flaunts the fact that it was shot in 3D. Not only am I not seeing it because of the 3D element, but also it has Nic Cage. Enough said.) 3D movies do the complete opposite of what they should do and that’s to change the movie industry. However, 3D takes cinema a step backwards, adding absolutely nothing to the movie.
I’ll just add in some personal experiences that I’ve had with 3D movies. Take “Avatar”, for example. This movie was advertised as the next generation of film making, shot completely with 3D cameras and using the best special effects Hollywood could provide. Many thought that this was going to be James Cameron’s best film since “Terminator 2” and no, “Titanic” wasn’t his last great film. Now granted, “Avatar” was an enjoyable movie with a pretty good plot and memorable characters. However, being that the film is about 3 hours in length, there was a point where I forgot that I was in fact watching the movie in 3D. In addition, I gradually began to feel a throbbing headache forming in my head, due to too much 3D. I later realized that I was watching the movie through two sets of lenses. One, through the glasses that the theatre provides. Two, I was wearing contact lenses. So it was as if I was only able to watch the film through two sets of glasses for my eyes. Think of how much my brain hated me at the moment, and I was only sitting down.
The same has been for other 3D movies. I saw “Toy Story 3” in 3D the first time I watched the film. The same exact thing happened like it did with “Avatar”. Halfway through the movie I forgot that it was 3D. The story for this movie, however, was more basic than “Avatar” and wasn’t as long of a movie, so I didn’t get the hangover from 3D. About a month later, I saw the film again with a friend without 3D and honestly it was more enjoyable. I wasn’t distracted from the uncomfortable glasses that I was forced to wear at the time and I saved a bit of money.
And that right there is the biggest problem with 3D movies. The prices. Oh. My. God. The prices. Standard matinee movies will run a customer about $8 or $9. Evening prices will run a person about $11. How much is 3D? About $5 more than standard prices. “Avatar” in 3D drained $15 of my hard earned money. So if someone were to pay for 2 people, that’s 30 greenbacks for two tickets. Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? I could own 2 top-quality movies for life on DVD for that price. So when a movie that’s still in theatres claims that they are currently topping the box office, look and see if that movie is in 3D. It’s a way of cheating and a cheap way to make more money. Why do you think M. Night Shyamalan used 3D for his last film? 3D sells, not matter how bad the film will be. I swear I could produce “Paint Drying” in 3D and make at least $2,000,000 from ticket sales. Sure, it would get awful reviews no doubt, but I’d be rich! I really hope that one day 3D will be fixed because it honestly has a ton of potential. Many forms of entertainment that we use today also went through a phase, like televisions, video games, etc. But for now, it’s just simply too expensive to see something that hasn’t been perfected. Wouldn’t you rather pay for something that was complete than something that can be improved? I sure learned the hard way.