What is the deal with 3-D?
James Cameron makes “Avatar” and suddenly we think every movie should be converted to it?
It’s bad enough that the ticket prices are higher for something that, in certain films, creates little more than the vaguely cosmic feeling of holding your hand out in front of your face.
But with this current phase in cinema being discussed as something people would have in their homes as a standard soon, we find ourselves largely underwhelmed.
Changes in technology don’t always reflect a need people have but should at least display something better than what people have already seen.
While “Avatar” was filmed with new equipment causing something of a difference, films like Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” and the newly released “Clash of the Titans” remake were filmed as 2-D movies and converted to 3-D.
The effect?
Most of the backgrounds are blurry because the directors didn’t film them for 3-D, thus projecting a beautiful image of blurriness that looks somewhat closer to us. We are all for new ideas and relevant technology, but the recent 3-D movie trend is neither of these.
Although it seems we’re in the minority, we hate to think about what this trend will do to the cost of films — and the dignity of them — when we merely want to see the newest Kate Winslet Oscar nom, and instead we have to pay extra to see it in startling 3-D.
Please, we beg you, don’t make this a standard before it’s somehow better than what we already have.
