“Alice in Wonderland” rules the box office for the second week in a row. “Avatar” becomes one of the biggest grossing movies of all time.
class=hardreturn>
3-D movies have become so popular that even 3-D TVs are going on sale soon.
class=hardreturn>
But when studio execs say that 3-D movies are the wave of the future, I have to wonder: is that a promise or a threat?
class=hardreturn>
There is the gee-whiz element of seeing a film in (sort of) three dimensions, but there is a physical downside for some people.
class=hardreturn>
If 3-D films literally give you a headache, it’s not just your overactive imagination. It’s the filmmaking process.
class=hardreturn>
According to a wire story, “Doctors say those with less-than-perfect eyesight can suffer nausea, blurred vision and dizziness from 3-D movies.”
class=hardreturn>
The technology toys with depth perception, so if you don’t have clear vision in both eyes, you could get headaches and other side effects.
class=hardreturn>
Apparently, 3-D flicks can have this kind of negative impact on 20 percent of the population.
class=hardreturn>
Now, I personally don’t get ill when I watch 3-D flicks (well, except for the Jonas Brothers concert movie in 3-D, but that wasn’t the glasses making me sick — thank you, ladies and germs!) but I feel 3-D victims’ pain. I get ridiculously nauseous watching movies with shaky hand-held cameras.
class=hardreturn>
This potential sickness does, however, leave out a good chunk of the potential 3-D audience.
class=hardreturn>
The good thing right now is that many theaters don’t have 3-D capabilities yet, so movies are released in both 3-D and 2-D formats. but, based on studios’ enthusiasm for 3-D, this could change rather quickly.
class=hardreturn>
So is 3-D the great wave of the future? At this point, I hope not. At least so far, the 3-Dness doesn’t really add much. “Avatar” would have been just as effective and visually stunning in two dimensions. and it apparently was, according to people I know who saw the 2-D version.
class=hardreturn>
The Jo-Bros’ concert film was no better by making fans’ waving arms seem three-dimensional. then, fans got Joe Jonas throwing a pair of sunglasses at the camera so it felt as though they were flying right at viewers — spectacularly cheesy use of 3-D!
class=hardreturn>
“Alice in Wonderland” is not particularly wonderful, and 3-D can’t change that.
class=hardreturn>
As much as studios are pushing the idea of 3-D, the technology is not as impressive as they claim. there is still a sense of watching something decidedly fake. It feels not like real three dimensions but a very artificial facsimile, like those shiny 2-D pictures with figures that seem to morph as you move them around.
class=hardreturn>
Granted, it’s better than Vincent Price in “House of Wax,” but still …
class=hardreturn>
The other issue is that, right now, 3-D is still something that directors toy with (see my Jo-Bro reference above). It holds the danger of taking viewers out of the storyline so they can admire the technology. James Cameron controlled that fairly well in “Avatar,” using the 3-D in more subtle ways that you might have expected. but that’s a rarity.
class=hardreturn>
What do you think of 3-D movies?
class=hardreturn>