3-D movies are not worth the cost

Going to the show is a favourite pastime of mine. I’ve spent many a Tuesday night going to see the latest that Hollywood has to offer. Now we’re being shown a different kind of movie: 3-D. Although the technology itself is not relatively new, with most of its heyday in the 1980s, 3-D has developed over time to become almost a standard in the movie industry.

James Cameron’s Avatar broke the 3-D ground in the Hollywood film scene, and with unprecedented profit at the box office and on DVD it is clear that 3-D has some financial worth. But is it even worth the extra $3.50?

I tend to choose to go to the “cheap night” films, because they only cost just under $5 to see a flick. With 3-D technology, I’m corralled into paying extra money in hopes that the “realism” will contribute to my entertainment experience. Of course, this is just a load of bull:

3-D technology has little to offer
artistically to films other than to
allow for bigger budgets because of
the larger profit margin.

Paying an extra amount is not the only downside to 3-D. We end up having to look quite silly wearing these dorky little glasses, which we may or may not choose to recycle after the show. These glasses have been shown to cause headaches and even induce migraines in chronic sufferers, which was admitted to in the patent by Robert Powell, the inventor of 3-D display devices. All of this just for the added effect of some object to “look” like it’s flying at you through the screen.

It offers no attempt for artistic value either. With the tag of “3D” on a film, viewers will flock to see it simply because of the experience. Movies recently released have been making ludicrous amounts of money and after seeing them I can vouch that it’s not about the creativity or good characters/story.

Slapstick movies such as Jackass 3-D are making $50 million on opening weekend, when non-3-D blockbusters fail to even compete. Theatres that are incapable of showing 3-D technology are suffering as well. Prices are going up to compensate for the loss of money just about everywhere.

Now, it seems like a broad generalization to say that offering a movie in 3-D discredits its artistic value or merit. It is, however, simply a consequence of following the fad. 3-D movies are focused on delivering an “experience” to the viewer rather than delivering the film itself. Less focus is put on the details of plot and character development and more detail is placed on realism.

Are 3-D movies even all that real? 3-D technology seems to be a step backwards in the chronology of movie realism.

We were just getting to the pinnacle of viewing pleasure with high definition (HD) and now 3-D is back in the picture.

Aside from that, high definition focuses on actual realism, where 3-D focuses on experience. High definition, even though incorporated into today’s modern 3-D technology, offers little more than what life looks like, rather than experiencing life itself.

It’s all a part of our addiction to experiencing reality as a part of reality.

With that in mind when you pay the $13.55 it costs to see a 3-D movie, ask yourself this as you watch it: “Would this be any different or even better without the 3-D technology?” If the answer is yes, if you can see through the facade of entertainment as experience rather than viewing pleasure and artistry, then you probably will need to find another theatre.

Comments are closed.