Flickgrrl

3-D: Gimmick or artistic breakthrough?

The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - Flickgrrl

6 comments

3-D: Gimmick or artistic breakthrough?

POSTED: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 3:12 PM

Carrie Rickey, Film Critic

Old 3-D glasses were nerdy; the new specs are Tina Fey hip.

From Hollywood Boulevard to Madison Avenue, Wall Street to Main Street, the question du jour is "To 3-D or not 3-D?"

And from James Cameron to John Lassiter, the biggest names in movies are making them in the new 3-D process, better aligned and synchronized than the cumbersome 1950s gimmick that brought us 'Bwana Devil' and 'House of Wax.'

I myself am a 3-D skeptic. There have been moments in 'Bolt' and 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' that I thought 'oooh, cool,' but the illusion of depth was not sustained through the whole films. When I reported this piece, I was surprised at the enthusiasm from a lot of people I respect.

You can test-drive the new 3-D by picking up a pair of polarized lenses free from CVS, K-Mart or Target and watching the 'Monsters vs. Aliens' ads during the second quarter of the Super Bowl.

Your thoughts on the new, improved 3-D? Gimmick or artistic breakthrough? Were you sold by those Super Bowl spots? Are you willing to pay a premium of $3 on top of the price of a movie ticket to see a movie in 3-D?

6 comments

Previous Story: Oscar Nods

Next Story: Slumdog Backlash

Comments (6)

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 3:28 PM, 01/31/2009

Great story and blog, Carrie.... We go to the movies to be manipulated in many ways - mind games, thrill rides, romance... this is an additional welcomed "manipulation" to keep us going back to theatres! and yes, the folks behind it all really do have talent! POLAR EXPRESS 3D IMAX was one of my most memorable movie thrill rides ever - and to think it was rated G!

— avidreader

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 3:35 PM, 01/31/2009

For me, a good story is the most important component of a film. But if James Cameron is right and that he needed 3-D technology to tell the Avatar story as Victor Fleming needed spfx tech to make The Wizard of Oz, then within ten years 2-D movies will look as quaint as black-and-white movies looked in 1960.

— carrierickey

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 5:27 PM, 01/31/2009

I suspect the cost of converting theater projection systems in this tough economic time will have a serious dampening effect on the potential for audience acceptance. I can't post a graphic in this comment section. But if I could I'd post a pair of eyeball hologram glasses and let you know I'm looking forward to seeing whether or not the new technology works as well as claimed. In the meantime, it turns out we may all be just a big 3-D projection: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

— californiafan

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 11:21 PM, 01/31/2009

Carrie take 3d for what it is- a fun gimmick. Its a cynical attempt by the networks to manipulate viewers to watch their shows. Chuck is a very good show and should not need a gimmick to get people to watch. There is nothing artistic about 3d. What is wrong with people that they are so obsessed with seeing themselves on TV? I want to see talented actors on TV- not my next door neighbor. I refuse to get caught up in theis childish reality TV nonsense. More people watch the no talent Simon Cowell insult people than vote. Its no wonder that our U.S. children do so poorly in standardized tests as compared to their counterparts in European countries. The networks are well aware of the appeal of American Idol so they are using this 3d gimmick to increase audience participation. I guess the next idea will be for viewers to csll in to decide how a comedy or drama will end.

— footballguru

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 9:28 AM, 02/01/2009

3D – Artistic breakthrough or gimmick? It depends. Many years ago I saw the original 3D version of Hitchcock’s "Dial M for Murder". It was a totally different experience from the 2D version I had seen before. Definitely an artistic breakthrough, no gimmicks. The show began with a Three Stooges short, also in 3D. That was nothing but gimmicks, especially the 3D eye-pokes, but very entertaining. I would expect nothing less from the Stooges. As a film buff I would recommend checking out some of the early serious experimentations in 3D, like "Dial M". And of course, the Stooges.

— jeffpickens

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 5:40 PM, 02/04/2009

I'm reminded of the line spoken by Gary Busey as Buddy Holly in "The Buddy Holly Story," when he and his wife go to a 3-D movie. Looking at the audience in their glasses, he says, "It looks like a seeing eye dog convention." Any cinematic device can turn into a gimmick, or can be used to intelligent artistic effect, depending on the skill of the person using it. The problem with 3-D is that it's particularly susceptible to being used as a gimmick. It's kind of the cinematic equivalent of the wah-wah guitar in that respect. I wonder if it will ever get to the point where we can watch a 3-D movie without being very conscious of the fact that we're watching a movie in 3-D. If not, then I don't think it can ever be good for movies, since it would essentially be serving as the thing which prevents us from suspending our disbelief.

— wwolfe