3D Movies: gimmicky already

Posted by & filed under Misc.

Variety has an interview with Katzenberg about the 3D in movies and how “low-brow” 3D conversions will “kill the format” and that audience will give up on it and won’t go to 3D movies.

Sorry, but that’s pretty much has already happened. I don’t mean that audience will shun the 3D per se, but if you look at distribution between regular and 3D theater showings, for non-Avatar movies public doesn’t seem to shun 2D.

Even worse. While standing in (short) line to get a ticket for How to Train Your Dragon, I heard another patron ask the ticket guy on if they had to wait extra 1.5 hours because all current showings were 2D only (I don’t know what genius does scheduling at the movies anyways — all 3D showings are clustered together so you have 2 hour wait time if you don’t want to see alternate format).
And the ticket guy shrugged and said “there isn’t anything special in 3D version”. And you know, that new format is just a hype.

Yes, in some cases 3D is useful and extra nice. But even in Avatar it’s not the essential part. Because as soon as medium turns into critical part of the experience, you know that story is weak. Books are not 3D. Some movies are not even color — mostly due to artist’s vision, but it means that you can tell a story in different formats, and people still will like it.

I ended up watching 2D version of the cartoon and I loved it. Yes, I suppose I have middes some of clever 3D tricks the director put in there, but I loved the story and the characters and humor. And my imagination added 3D where my eyes didn’t see it.

So, do make 3D movies. But don’t be upset if audience doesn’t care that much to pay 3 dollars extra to sit in glasses, unless you create something visually stunning, like an Avatar (because if you take the visuals out of it, you get almost 1-to-1 remake of the Pocahontas, but with space ships and USB-equipped aliens).

One Response to “3D Movies: gimmicky already”

Leave a Reply