There was a time when I thought it would be a sign of success when reviewers no longer bothered to mention the 3D in a movie — that it would mean 3D had become so ubiquitous and accepted as a part of the process that it would cease to be mentioned in the same way that HiDef is not mentioned much in reviews of TV shows anymore.
Well, 3D is hardly being mentioned anymore but I fear it’s because it is barely worth mentioning. In fact, that’s exactly what one of the few reviewers said who even noted 3D at all in his analysis of “Megamind,” that the 3D was so minimal that it wasn’t notable.
While some filmmakers may take that as a compliment, thinking that it means the audience (and reviewers) may be enjoying the experience but no longer perceiving it as distinctive, I think it’s a very concerning trend. Particularly in light of the fact that my local AMC theater just raised the 3D ticket price premium to $4 for RealD 3D presentations; the IMAX premium is $6. (Two-thirds of “Megamind’s” $46 mil. opening weekend was from 3D showings, including more than 6% of the overall from IMAX 3D screens.)
A couple months ago when the 3D premium was only $3, a friend of mine went to see “Toy Story 3” in 3D. It was his first 3D movie experience, and last. He said he spent the whole time taking his glasses on and off trying to distinguish the difference. He seldom noticed a difference. The only distinction he noticed was that the picture was much brighter without the glasses, which he prefered. So, he asked, why should he pay $3 more for a darker image that offered such minimal 3D depth?
Why indeed. Even moreso now that the difference in ticket price is $4 or $6.
The 3D in “Megamind” is better than some but not even as noticeable as DreamWorks recent “How to Train Your Dragon.” And that wasn’t particularly impactful either. “Megamind” is an amusing enough film but nothing especially noteworthy. The trailers for upcoming 3D films like “Yogi Bear” looked even less compelling, not only to me but to others in the theater who were literally yawning.
Reviewers generally dismissed the 3D in recent films like “Jackass 3D” and “Saw 3D,” not to mention “Pirahna 3D.”
Not long ago 3D alone was reason enough to go to a movie you might otherwise not be inclined to see. I’m afraid the conservative approach to pushing 3D off the screen into the audience is now creating a stigma about 3D that could soon cause audiences to specifically stay away from the 3D version of a movie in order to save $4 to $6 per ticket and enjoy a superior picture quality.
— By Scott Hettrick
I wish I had 3D glasses when reading this completely lack luster and fact-less article…. if 3d is a “yawn” then I just fell asleep reading this……ZZZZZZZZZZ.
I’m afraid we’re going to be hearing “I told you so’ from many corners when 3D fails again in theaters. This is one of the things the entertainment industry seems incapable of getting right. And 3D gets another sucker punch from the consumer electronics industry, which has introduced it too early without enough compelling content and has been doing exclusive deals that ensure that much of the content that does exist isn’t generally available.