Who was not awed by the staggering visual masterwork that was Avatar 3D, or did not flinch when bugs swarmed from Bradley Cooper’s jaws and into the audience during the horror film Case 39? There is something to be said for the new adventures that the rush of 3D movies have given us; that extra adrenaline boost, or even just a moment of captivating beauty that envelops the viewer from beyond the boundaries of a traditional screen. That being said, is this 3D craze such a wonderful thing? What is the matter with the 2D tales that we used to know? Are our imaginations so worn out that the only way to get that entrancing feeling of being at the movies is to have the action inches from our noses?
The number of films coming out in 3D is certainly impressive. Audiences are consuming the new technology voraciously, demanding ever more detail, more explosions, more of a realistic experience… I wonder when smell-o-vision will be back on the table; you know, so the audience can sniff the flowers from Alice in Wonderland or breathe in the thick, iron-dense scent of guts from Piranha 3D. It would just give the film that extra kick and likely ruin the taste of popcorn, good news for America’s obesity problem. Then again, that nauseous feeling is already an all too real sensation resulting from watching these eye-popping films. There is a significant population of moviegoers, young and old, who are nearly incapable of enjoying 3D as it makes them dizzy or even physically ill. The fast motion scenes and extra special effects that usually accompany today’s movies have been testing the eyes for years, almost daring us to keep up. Now in 3D, as the camera swoops over and under, in and out, up and around, dodging obstacles this way and that, the whole thing has proven to be just too much for some.
It is increasingly apparent that almost all action films being released require the ability of being viewed in 3D if they want to remain competitive in the industry, and this is undoubtedly so if they intend to be blockbusters. It is disappointing and even distracting to watch a movie in two dimensions that was specifically meant to be seen in three. Not only does the story usually suffer on these films (a symptom that can be forgiven with the distraction of 3D excellence), but the cinematography concentrates on settings and scenes in which things can be hurled into the audience or else pop out of the screen.
3D television is also becoming increasingly available and affordable as networks scramble to provide content for the growing demand. I do not think I really want to see Dwight Schrute’s face inches from my own when I watch The Office. Being able to basically count the pores on the nose of Glee’s Sue Sylvester after networks went hi-def was damaging enough.
It appears that entertainment in three dimensions is here to stay. The hope is that development of quality storylines and utilization of gifted actors are not neglected for the sake of a more technologically and visually orgasmic experience for the American moviegoer.
