3D And Movies: A Blessing, A Curse, or Both?

3D isn't anything new. It's been around for nearly 60 years, in many different formats and mediums. It's been thrilling people since it was developed at the end of the 1940s, whether it's at the movies, in magazines, and now, even on Television.

Despite the expansion of the 3D format, it's undoubtedly most recognized for it's role in movies. 3D movies were a huge trend in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s, and now the craze is back, as in the past few years almost every other film is being released in 3D. Is it a blessing or a curse? Read on to find out my opinion!




3D goes all the way back to the late 1940s, when the technology was first developed.  By the mid-1950s, audiences became smitten by the technology (the above picture is a famous print of a 50s movie audience watching a 3D film), and the technology was tied in with sci-fi movies that told stories of space adenturs, mad scientists, and evil robots (remember, this was during the initial space race and before the lunar landing, so space was a thrilling topic to the every person).

Into the 60s and 70s, the format went the way of camp and grindhouse, with titles like Black Lolita and The Flesh and Blood Show. It was used a gimmick to get people in theaters to see carnal pleasures in a whole new dimension. Francis Ford Coppola even directed one called The Playgirls and The Bellboy, which is slightly infamous for being one of the original "adult" films that people could see in 3D.

 

Yeah, this is real.

In the 80s, 3D was used in a number of painful sequels to horror franchises, including A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th. By this point, it was being used to sucker people in to see movies from series that should have died long ago-the idea behind the marketing was telling people that even though this was the umpteenth movie in the series, it was somehow scarier because it was in 3D.

Even so, 3D isn't the only gimmicky technology in movie-going history. In 1960, a man named Hans Laube created "Smell-o-vision", a gimmick that involved releasing scents in a theater during a movie that were triggered by the soundtrack. The technology was only used in one movie-it was apparently distracting (the hiss sound of the scent being released), and would often reach audience members after whatever tying action had passed. Smell-o-vision even had a competitor called AromaRama that attempted the same thing. No, I'm not making this up.

3D disappeared from mainstream movies for a while until sometime around the early 1990s, but it's now back in a new, updated form. It all started back around 2003 with Robert Rodriguez's "Spy Kids 3D", which brought back the cultural phenomenon. Ever since, 3D movies have only become more and more prominent, and we've entered a sort of "second age" of the technology.

So...is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, in my opinion, it's a bit of both. I've seen some truly awesome 3D films in the past few years. My favorite thus far was My Bloody Valentine 3D, because rather than just add depth to the image, there were some actual "pop-out" moments (such as one cheeky moment where the first victim's eye popped out of his skull after getting a pick axe from behind).

It actually did that, minus the screen shattering.

 It's all about a few things: how it's used, how much it adds, and if the film can stand on it's own without it. My Bloody Valentine is already a campy, tongue-in-check horror movie, so the addition of some equally campy (and effective) effects made it a lot of fun to watch (another gag involves a character searching an area and pointing a gun right out at the audience). While I haven't seen the 2D version, it could stand on it's own as a decently fun slasher flick without the effects.

Then there's Avatar (I'm already prepared for the backlash from people who claim it's one of the best movies of all time and should've won Best Picture). I will give it this-the 3D made Pandora look gorgeous,it was used well, and the technology was groundbreaking. But that's about it. We've seen the story before, there was nothing new there at all. I knew exactly what was gonna happen, and let's face it, we all did (that is, I hope you did...). The characters weren't exactly deep, in fact, they were pretty cookie cutter-the gruff, badass general, the corporate a-hole, the tough scientist, blah blah blah.

My reaction wasn't this strong, but you've gotta love South Park.

 

 

 

If that isn't convincing enough, how about this: the 3D had such an effect on people that some were getting depressed because they knew they could never live somewhere as beautiful as Pandora-they actually got depressed because the 3D was so stunning they it was surreal. I'm sorry but...really?!?! Let me end on Avatar but saying I don't get annoyed with those who love Avatar-I get annoyed with those who get mad at me because I don't think it's one of the greatest movies ever, or even one of the best of last year. Sorry.

Sadly, we've gotten to the point where 3D is being tacked on at the last minute for mere profit. The remake of Clash of the Titans, for example, wasn't even shot in 3D-instead, it was added in post production in a response to the craze taking off. It may seem like doing 3D in post production rather than just shooting in it may not make a difference, but trust me...it really does.

Luckily, there is a handful of filmmakers out there that refuse to add 3D for mere financial reasons. Among them is Christopher Nolan, writer/director of so many awesome movies, including The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and of course, Inception. A few (very) minor details just came out about the next Batman film (The Dark Knight Rises), and among those details it came out that Warner Brothers did not decide to make it 3D after much protest from Nolan, who said he saw it as a mere distraction that would take away from the story. Good on ya Chris!

A rare voice of reason in the industry!

Look, I'm not completely against 3D. Like I said, it can be great fun. My Bloody Valentine was awesome, and so was the beginning of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, which included 15 minutes at the beginning (Disapparating+3D+IMAX=mind blown). But it would be nice if it could be toned down so that not every single goddamn Dreamworks animated movie that's released has 3D in the title (yes, it's in the titles now!)

Bottom line, 3D, like a lot of things, is good in moderation. Good day.