When did people decide that almost every movie needed 3-D?
Is it really 3D? Artwork by Ed Gloor
I remember being a young child, no more than eight, and seeing a movie screen pop out towards me. The elation and awe that filled my innocent mind couldn’t compare with anything else I had ever seen before. For me as a child, the Muppets silly comedy and goofy antics was made all the better with 3-D effects. Fast-forward eight years, and I see Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. I was forced to pay the outlandish price of $13 to see it in Real D 3-D and RPX. After I saw the travesty that is Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I was left with one burning question: where was the 3-D?
3-D movies are not what they used to be. About four years ago the occurrence of 3-D movies was “once in a blue moon.” Now, not only are the theaters riddled with this trend, people can put down from $1,000 to almost $4,000 for a 3-D TV. Even gaming consoles have embraced the 3-D craze. As all this 3-D floods the media market, many movies are practically lying with their promise of 3-D effects.
The most prevalent 3-D problem has been movies. The conversion of 2-D movies to 3-D is a slap to the face of moviegoers everywhere. Moviemakers don’t deserve the extra 3-D profits they’re trying to rake in. When a movie is actually filmed in Stereoscopic 3-D (uses two cameras, apart enough to mock human eyes), the 3-D effects seem real, and effective. However, most 3-D movies today were created in 2-D, and then digitally changed to 3-D, making the effects look sloppy.
Gone are the days of blue and red, or green and red glasses. That old 3-D formant is no more (for the most part); instead Real D 3-D is what theaters replaced it with. One may ask how these are different? According to diyaudioandvideo.com, old Stereoscopic technology blocked red light on one side, and blue or green light on the other. This is how our brains perceived 3-D images, but the new Real D 3-D actually allows the perception of 3-D from any angle. Using circular polarization (the twisting and bending of light in a circular manner), Real D 3-D distorts images in smaller ways than that of Stereoscopic 3-D. The result is cleaner looking 3-D effects. However, these more advanced glasses still don’t improve the effects of converted 3-D.
It all started with James Cameron’s Avatar. Ever since the release of Avatar, movies have had a dramatic jump in the inclusion of 3-D. According to http://screenrant.com, only eight 3-D movies were released in 2008, versus the ridiculous number of 20 movies in 2009. Sure, Avatar had great success with 3-D, but that’s the reason this trend began. After all the success this movie had, everyone decided it was okay to convert their 2-D movies to 3-D.
Many people enjoy classic films returning to theaters, but why must they return in 3-D? Movies like Titanic, Beauty and the Beast, and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace are all examples of converted 3-D movies. Why are we forced to pay extra money to wear some funny looking glasses and watch a film we already don’t need to pay for? Sure, it’s nice to see films back on the big screen, but asking for the extra 3-D charge on top of that is downright greedy.
3-D movies that are converted from 2-D is a trend that must end! Nobody should ever have to pay extra money for bad 3-D effects. Every moviemaker planning on making more money should prepare accordingly, by filming the movie using 3-D capable cameras. The re-releasing of movies in theaters again is all right, but corporate greed has caused even these to be converted. Sure, 3-D technology may be better these days, but that doesn’t change how good converted movies look. I, for one, am sick of paying extra charges for non-existent 3-D effects, and I eagerly await the day when all 3-D movies are actually…well…3-D movies.
