Thurgood Marshall graduation 2012
Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > March > 25 > Entry
Does 3D draw you in to the movie theater?
Monsters vs. Aliens comes out this Friday, and what with all the hoopla surrounding the 3D effects, from the 3D Superbowl ad on down, I’ve been wondering: Is 3D really the next big thing in movies, as some Hollywood execs would have you believe?
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the chief of DreamWorks Animation, which made Monsters vs. Aliens, has been particularly loud in beating the 3D drum - so much so that all future DreamWorks movies will be released in that format. Disney/Pixar has done the same, in that all their titles, except this year’s hand-drawn The Princess and the Frog, will be released in 3D. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 will also be reissued in 3D, ramping up to the release of Toy Story 3 in 2010. James Cameron’s 3D film Avatar, his first feature since Titanic, promises to dazzle later this year as well.
For the most part, I think 3D is a lot of fun, and if a movie is available in that format, I’ll go out of my way if need be to see it. Here’s an earlier post I wrote about the 3D movies I’ve seen, and here’s one that covers the 3D movies in the Disney theme parks.
To my 3D list I have to add Henry Selick’s wonderful film Coraline. I heard people say the 3D was disappointing, but I disagree. The 3D was subtle but immersive, much like the way Hitchcock used it in Dial M for Murder. And in fact, I thought its 3D was much more effective there than in the flashier Monsters vs. Aliens, which I will review Friday.
The problem is, the 3D systems are so expensive to install and operate, that theaters have been slower to add them than Hollywood would like. So that’s why for now, these movies also go out in regular “flat” versions. (The expense also explains why 3D movies carry a higher ticket price.)
So I ask: Is 3D enough to draw you to the movie theater more often, like Hollywood hopes? If a movie is available both ways, do you see it flat or in 3D? Is the experience memorable enough to justify the more expensive tickets?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
Comments
By Allie D.
March 25, 2009 2:18 PM | Link to this
I’m sure for the majority of folks who don’t have very high-tech home theater systems, the 3D draw will still work, but I think if things continue down the overpriced/overvalued track they are with movie theaters (it’s already nearly ten bucks for a ticket for crying out loud. $13.50 for IMAX and somewhere in between for a 3D show), it’s going to be really hard to keep the home theater industry from dipping its fingers into the pot. This takes us back to why it seems fewer people are going to the theater these days. You can only reel (pardon the pun) people in with gimmicks for so long before they start asking when they can have it at home. The movie-going paradigm is changing along with everything else media nowadays. Because people CAN spend more time at home watching movies (because they can get giant TVs and great sound systems for cheap and rent movies through the mail/internet), they do. Simple as that.By Sir Critic
March 25, 2009 1:42 PM | Link to this
Interesting perspective, Kenny - but doesn’t that sort of run counter to the studios’ hope that 3D will draw people back to theaters? Their objective seems to be giving people an experience they can’t get at home.By Kenny D.
March 25, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this
For the polarized 3D systems going into theaters these days, I would gladly pay the extra few dollars to see what they could do with it. There is considerably less eye-strain involved and you can still see around you to reach for the overpriced movie refreshments. I only wish there was a way to transfer this experience to the home. Allie D is right in that there is no way to duplicate this experience if you don’t have the better part of $100,000 ready to retrofit your home theater. The thing about 3D that gets me excited is that is is getting much easier to produce material in 3D, which will hopefully push inexpensive and high quality viewing capabilities to the home in less than twenty years (assuming no huge economic slumps that might block such progress).By Allie D.
March 25, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this
I have to give pretty much a big “No” to your question. I really could care less whether a film is in 3-D. Sure, it’s fun, but if it’s not the main draw for me. I’ll shell out the extra couple bucks and go with it. At least if the theater is properly equipped and the glasses are comfortable, it’s a good experience. What I HATE is when TV shows try to do 3D. There was an episode of Chuck back in February that did that and it was horrible.By Kim S.
March 25, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this
I’d go out of my way for 3D…if I had an interest. I actually paid to see “My Bloody Valentine” in 3D, which wasn’t that bad. As far as Monsters, etc - I doubt I’ll see them in a theater. I don’t have kids, and it’s been awhile since I saw a kid movie that lit me up. So I think I’ll pass.