Not that the movie wasn’t visually awe-inspiring; it was. The storyline (and I do realize this is basically a kid’s flick and, admittedly, I was a bit drunk at the time) however seemed way too “cookie cutter” for me. I’m not going to bore you with any review of the flick – there are plenty of those online already; however I am going to give my two-cents on this latest money-making fad that’s hit theaters everywhere – 3D.
It’s rather interesting as 3D has been around for quite some time now. There was a short-lived fad in the early to mid 1950’s and an attempted comeback in the 1960’s that resulted in something like 50 other movies (mostly of the sexploitation variety) being produced; however 3D never caught on as the standard movie-going experience. Perhaps it was the crudeness of the technology back then (the old red/blue 3D glasses); however I think 3D never became the standard for a much simpler explanation – it’s unnecessary. Now that the technology has advanced and the visual aspect has become much more vibrant, the uselessness of this 3D effect is still there…
Now, just to be fare, I’ll let you know that I am not a “normal” person when it comes to 2D vs. 3D. From birth, I have always been quite near-sighted in my right eye. I’m not exactly sure how old I was when I discovered this; but my first pair of eye-glasses were purchased at age 23
when I needed them in order to obtain a driver’s license in Florida. I had been living in Michigan until then and was always able to pass the eye test by explaining my condition; Florida was different. As my optometrist explained to me, I don’t use both eyes to focus when I look at things. My brain has compensated for my right eye near-sightedness by learning to only use the image from one eye to focus. Although my eyes are open and light is being detected by both, my mind is only “paying attention” to the focused image of one eye. And it’s not always the same eye – I can actually make entire pages of text “jump” between two virtual positions just by concentrating and explicitly selecting which eye to use… It’s hard to explain to “normal” people; unfortunately what ends up happening is that I basically have very poor depth perception. And by “very poor” I think it might be none. So basically, the world in general is 2D to me (not that I don’t understand what depth is, I’ve just never “seen” it) which, I suppose, makes me not the best person to be berating this 3D movie technology; however I doubt my opinion would be any different if my eyesight were normal.You see, the problem I have with all these movies being shot and shown in 3D is that it gives the producers yet one more reason to ignore what should be the most important part of any movie – the story. I mean isn’t that why we go to the movies to begin with – an escape from our mundane lives with the opportunity to spend a couple hours experiencing the lives of others (real or imaginary)? When did we, as a society, decide that all we need from these exploits was bright, flashy colors in 3D? Whatever happened to the import of the story…?
Oh well, I suppose it is what it is. As long as people continue to pay the premiums to go and watch this stuff, they’re going to keep pumping it out. I guess the real problem is the audience’s compliancy with this. Unfortunately it ends up being a classic Catch-22 – you can only see movies that are actually being shown. Heck, I paid $18 a couple days ago basically because I had nothing better to do. I guess that puts me right up there as part of the problem…
bis später,
Coriolis
No comments:
Post a Comment