Have you ever gotten "re-gifted?" You know, when the giver had clearly received the present from someone else, and is now trying to pass it off to you? That's what I think of the recent trend of rereleasing movies in 3-D. It allows studios to evade the responsibility of creating anything new and simply rely on the technology aspect to put extra dollars in their pockets. And sadly, this ploy has been ridiculously successful.
If you didn't know, 3-D movies are one of Hollywood's latest undertakings. They work by increasing the appearance of depth to create images that seem like they are "coming at you." Although 3-D movies have actually existed since 1915, they have become especially popular throughout the 2000s, resulting in excessive amounts of rereleases like Toy Story, The Lion King and Titanic.
Disney has been used to re-releasing its popular movies into theaters every 10 years. However, with the various home cinema options available today, this practice no longer made financial sense-until the era of 3-D. Finally, a way for people in Hollywood to make excessive amounts of money without really doing anything!
If you haven't seen Finding Nemo yet, I highly recommend it-its one of those kids movies that can make you laugh even after you've grown up. Finding Nemo was originally released by Disney-Pixar in 2004. It is the story of the neurotic clownfish Marlin (Albert Brooks) on a search through Australia's Great Barrier Reef, accompanied by his blue tang fish friend Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), to find his son, Nemo (Alexander Gould). Over Rosh Hashanah break, I decided to see Finding Nemo in 3-D, and see how it compares to the original version. The verdict? Although the movie itself is still delightful, the 3-D aspect didn't really add anything and was definitely not worth the extra 30 percent at the box office.
The film industry has enjoyed large financial gains as a result of releasing 3-D films. Last year, the top 50 3-D films grossed over $8 billion. Theaters charge considerably more for 3-D movies than 2-D, an average of 28 percent, and 43 percent more for IMAX 3-D, according to cnet.com. As a result, it can appear that 3-D movies are simply a money-making ploy for the film industry, charging exorbitant ticket fees for special effects of mediocre quality. Additionally, plot line and character development are often sacrificed for explosions and guns that sort of look like they're coming right at you.
James Cameron's Avatar, considered the highest quality 3-D movie yet, was the highest grossing film of all time, earning over $2 billion worldwide according to Box Office Mojo. Upon seeing the success of Avatar, many studios have tried to attain their piece of this billion dollar pie. However, unlike Avatar, which was praised for its cinematic breakthroughs, most attempts at 3-D filmmaking have received much criticism from audiences and critics alike.
Walter Murch, arguably the most revered film editor and sound designer in films today, criticized 3-D films in a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times. He describes them quite bluntly as "dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive."
Despite it's obvious faults, the 3-D movie movement endures. There has been much anticipation for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, as well as Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby, which promise better quality than recent 3-D movies. Additionally, 3-D televisions are now on the market. But beware of "headaches, dizziness, nausea, seizures, and more," warns Samsung on the Blu-Ray website.
If done well, quality 3-D rereleases are possible, even with the difficulty of converting 2-D film into 3-D. However, the rereleasing of movies into 3-D seems like an easy way to justify a huge price bump at the box office. 3-D movies attempt to immerse their audience in the cinematic experience. However, a truly great film can do this without relying on an extra dimension as a crutch.
Whether you hate it or just strongly dislike it, 3-D is sure to only become more abundant in the next few years, before the next thing comes along.