Tuesday, April 13, 2010

This 3D Mess Has Got To Go... Hey Hey, Ho Ho

Yes, you can accuse me of jumping on a bandwagon, I have to talk about this move by Hollywood to once again bring back 3D by shoe horning a lot of movies into the format.

We've already survived other periods for craptacular 3D, and because theatres and the studios get a premium for showing the movie in 3D even if they aren't shot in a way that makes converting them worth the effort.

You know there is something shoddy with the process when even Michael Bay is against it. "Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice."

This is the same man who said, "We are entertainers, plain and simple, and we're responsible to bring that money back, to make a profit," so you know that if even profit-driven Michael Bay is recoiling at the thought that this process compromises his work as a filmmaker, there is a problem.

I mean, aside from a few event pictures, is anyone really clamoring for everything to be in 3D? I think it is a valid criticism that by applying the process to pictures that were never originally slated for that kind of treatment diminishes the effect, barring computer-animated pictures which transition to 3D much better than live action films shot with traditional cameras. I'm not against 3D as a process, but it should be used sparingly. The way the studios are trotting out these movies, they are quickly wearing out the gimmick's welcome with the movie going public.

I think it is funny looking back at 1983 with Siskel and Ebert looking at the stinkers of that year, and they started with a couple of the horrifying 3D movies from that year. We could see some more clunkers like that on a yearly basis now. And the fact that it costs between 9 and 15 million dollars to reprocess a movie to make it 3D makes this even more despairing, because I am sure there are a lot of smaller pictures that could be made with that kind of money which would end up being good risks for the studios.

I mean, I am loathe to imagine how far this trend could possibly go. I mean, does anyone need to see An Evening With Kevin Smith 4 in 3D? Or you could sign a petition for My Dinner with Andre in 3D... because why not given the logic of the studios these days.

So I implore you avoid movies in 3D if they were not shot in that process in mind or made from computer animated sources so the studios are more selective with how they use it.


Cal's Canadian Cave of Coolness said...

You got it right again. The POST 3D they added to "Clash of the Titans" was unnecessary. It was so obviously added only to catch the wave of a trend and that made me feel cheated. Now take a movie like "Resident Evil - Afterlife". I love this franchise. It's candy for my brain. Now they went into it using the process right from the beginning and looking at the trailer they are doing so to come up with some very cool visual effects. I am looking forward to that one. Say what you will but those creators are using the technology to ENHANCE their vision no matter how limited someone may feel that vision is. I loves me some Milla and 100 'Alice's' done right is okay with me.

MC said...

See, and that is the important thing... that the makers set out to make a 3D type movie.