New movie trend fails to revitalize old flicks, hurts quality of classics
Some people call it a fad. Some people call it the future of cinema. Others say that it is the worst thing to happen to movies. Yes, I am referring to 3-D. No matter what it is called, people have undoubtedly found enjoyment in seeing films invade their personal space since the success of “Avatar” helped spawn this new concept.
But people are missing the bigger picture here, which is that 3-D is also another way for marketing executives to cash in on a high concept idea and unnecessarily add the 3-D element to films that don’t need it. That is especially the case with movie corporations like Disney, which re-released “The Lion King” in 3-D last year and “Beauty and the Beast” in 3-D this past weekend. There’s also news that a 3-D release of “The Little Mermaid” is coming to theaters in the near future.
Many people are thinking that it would be great to see a timeless classic return to the big screen, but there are reasons why they shouldn’t waste the extra $3. Here are some of them:
1. Muddy images
I haven’t seen “Beauty and the Beast” in 3-D (and probably won’t) but I did see “The Lion King” last year. And the product was pretty disappointing. The vivid colors from the original production were muddied and the lighting was a little dim. This is what happens when 3-D isn’t used properly. Take “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” for instance. The darker scenes were so murky because of the 3-D that I had to remove my 3-D glasses to see what was going on.
2. 3-D can be distracting
While watching “The Lion King” in 3-D, I found myself more focused on Simba’s snout being in a different spatial plane from the rest of his head than what he was saying to Nala. It didn’t look right. The 3-D in that movie was a lot like flipping through a pop-up book: it’s fun and entertaining, but it eventually loses its appeal and you’ll wonder if you really want to pay extra for it.
3. The story
Bringing special effect films like “Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace” back in 3-D (we all know this was inevitable) is understandable since those were movies seen for the special effects. Pixar films returning in 3-D are also exceptional, despite it being another attempt to take your money. But re-releasing movies like “Titanic” and classic Disney films in 3-D is a terrible idea because these are movies that you see for the stories, not special effects. A lot of people are thinking that because “Titanic” is a James Cameron film and Cameron directed “Avatar,” a 3-D “Titanic” film would be a great idea. Let me respond to that by saying that there is a big difference between “Avatar” and “Titanic.” “Avatar” was a movie that people saw for the motion-capture technology and special effects. People saw “Titanic” for the romance and the story about the ship’s demise. I mean, what is Cameron trying to accomplish by adding another dimension to this emotional film? 3-D tears?
4. Kids getting headaches
I suppose parents think bringing Disney films to life in 3-D is a great chance for their children to enjoy the same films that they enjoyed in their youth. But there is still that chance of the 3-D headache. If parents really want their kids to enjoy these films, then why not just purchase the DVD or Blu-ray instead? It seems like a much cheaper option compared to spending anywhere from $40 to $52 for a family of four to see the same film. It’s also a better alternative than packing a bottle of Advil as a precaution.
Yes, there have been cases where 3-D does work for movies, the latest being Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo.” But this lazy and uninventive idea of re-releasing old movies in 3-D is definitely not where this popular concept should be going.