Laura Merrell
I have only seen one 3D movie in my life: “Toy Story 3.” My friends informed me that 3D was really cool and that regular movies were a thing of the past. So, I succumbed to peer pressure and paid twice as much as I would for a normal ticket to wear goofy looking glasses. “Toy Story 3,” a mediocre movie at best, was hardly enhanced by the 3D effects. All that happened in 3D was the object in the forefront of the shot was brought forward, while the rest of the picture remained 2D. Really? I paid 16 dollars for a matinee movie with only one character in each shot in 3D? Feeling already disgruntled by the cost and letdown by the 3D, I couldn’t believe that I had to recycle my glasses or keep them as a souvenir, and be then forced to buy new glasses again if I ever wanted to watch another 3D movie.
The 3D trend is an easy way to make bland or subpar movies seem better. By “mesmerizing” the audience with 3D effects, there’s a smaller chance that people will notice the lack of plot or character development in films such as “Clash of the Titans,” or my favorite, “Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience.” Movies can lean on the special effects to get people to buy tickets, instead of the engrossing story or characters. The future of movies could very well be in danger with the extreme popularity of 3D.
Movies in 3D are just another smart money making ploy by the filmmaking industry. Add some 3D effects to a movie and suddenly you can charge almost twice as much. What’s even more inventive is when they rerelease old movies in 3D to collect a profit. Disney has, I’m sure, made millions by pushing their old classics into movie theatres for a second time. “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King” have already received this treatment, with “The Little Mermaid” soon to come.
I’m not the only one with misgivings about 3D. Film critic Roger Ebert has expressed his concern. James McAvoy has also come down very harshly on 3D, saying: “I think it’s a waste of time and money, and I wouldn’t pay for a ticket to go to one of those films.” Although the actor then had a hard time explaining his view when his movie, “Wanted,” came out in 3D, McAvoy countered by explaining that if a movie is shot entirely in 3D and not shot in 2D and later made into 3D, it’s no longer just a transparent way to make money. I can see the merit in his argument; some movies can be enhanced by 3D.
I never got around to watching “Titanic” when it was in theaters last year in 3D, but I wish I had. The drama and excitement of the film would have translated well. I can only imagine how amazing the scene with the iceberg hitting the ship would have been with 3D effects. Or the beautiful and still youthful Leonardo DiCaprio jutting out of the screen when he screams “I’m king of the world.” 3D has a tendency to be done as an afterthought, but there are exceptions. I’m eagerly awaiting my chance to see “Finding Nemo” in 3D. You don’t have to avoid seeing movies in 3D, but do proceed with caution.
SNL showcases memorable