TO 3D OR NOT TO 3D? THERE IS NO QUESTION
May The Force of 3D Be Avoided
Article by Ray Schillaci
How many times have we heard, this is the best 3D since “Avatar” to plug the newest tentpole releases? We were told this with every 3D Marvel release including “Guardians of the Galaxy”, “The Hobbit” movies and Disney’s “Maleficent”. But not one of them have proved to be anywhere near the majesty of “Avatar” or worth the extra $6.00 for those uncomfortable pieces of plastic we have to wrap around our head.
Speaking of those ridiculously large glasses that smaller children have a hard time keeping on while trying to Train Your Dragon, the theater chains urge the patrons to recycle them as if they are doing something generous for the environment. BULLSHIT. The theater owners do not want to pay for new glasses even though they have made twice the money on the movie viewing experience for pennies on the dollar. Instead, they re-issue these used scratched up glasses that end up hampering your viewing experience (as if we needed anything else to make the picture not as bright or interesting).
There was a time that 3D glasses were in a plastic wrap, signifying that they were in good shape. But the theater chains realized they could make a much bigger profit by “recycling” their shitty cheap product, scratches and all. Now you might as well be on the Buzz Lightyear ride at Disney World with blemished, oversized 3D glasses sans the fun.
If anything, the darker movies like “Prometheus,” and “300: Rise of an Empire” were aggravatingly terrible to view. In fact, note to all future audiences of 3D, if over 40% of your 3D movie that you are about to see consists of dark scenes, avoid them at all costs and DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY. To this day the “Entertainment Industry” has not perfected the 3D viewing experience for films that have multiple night shots or have a general dark and gritty look the likes of which Zack Snyder loves to employ on films such as “Man of Steel”.
What’s become even worse is the idea that the studios and theater chains are in cahoots to wrangle the public into paying more and practically forcing them to accept 3D. The latest example is “Frank Miller’s Sin City: A Dame to Kill For”. Theater chains will not have early shows without the 3D. Those shows are saved for later viewing while the 3D versions are the only ones made available. This is intolerable and frankly we should all level complaints to the theater chains or just refuse to see the movie.
The 3D battle against the public has been raged on even into home entertainment with big box stores hawking 3D TVs and telling people that even if they are not interested in the 3D display, they should still invest “…because 3D TVs have a better picture when displaying without 3D than the average HDTV”. This is totally false. As an example, a Samsung HDTV 1080p, 240hz has the same picture as one with 3D. Only difference, you’re paying a lot more for the glasses you will rarely use and a higher price for 3D.
There are 3D TVs out there that give the viewer an amazing immersive effect, but at what cost? The glasses cannot be worn for long periods of time due to severe headaches or motion sickness which many people experience. The movie itself has to be conducive for 3D, and that means most of the scenes should be bright and clear. Even on the best 3D TVs, dark, dreary and gritty does not translate well. The images tend to look muddy and hard to make out.
The only venue that seems to do well by this technology is gaming. 3D video games are specifically made to be immersive unlike many films that are usually quickied into it through post production. And once more, motion sickness does come into play along with headaches and shortens the gaming experience for many.
As it stands for now, 3D is not for the young with glasses that continuously slip off their ears. It’s not for people that wear glasses and have to put up with up to two hours of being uncomfortable. And, 3D is just not for the majority of the public, because no one is improving upon an inferior viewing experience. I challenge the rest of the film critic community who seem to be shilling this product for the studios. Stop claiming the latest release to be as good as “Avatar” when it’s obviously not. Be honest with the average audience that finds little justification in putting out their hard earn money on something that hardly delivers the thrill we experienced with that James Cameron landmark.
You are partially correct about the rant on the glasses. As a theatre owner, the glasses you get depend on the type of 3D system the theatre uses. RealD 3D systems (the ones we use) come with a new pair of unused glasses with each and every ticket purchase. RealD glasses also come in a child size, so two of your “bitches” are mute if you visit a theatre with a RealD system.
Now as a theatre operator, at least in our locations 3D features do much less in revenue than traditional films. It’s the studios that REQUIRE theatres to run a number of showtimes in 3D EVEN IF it generates less attendence. (go figure)
3D is not for everyone, I personally don’t enjoy it, but then again that’s why there are multiple screens at your local theatre.
Dear Bob,
I’m surprised you did not come out and plug your theater. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that you are right regarding “RealD”. But this still does not deliver anything near the quality of “Avatar”. And, let’s use as an example the ever popular Arclight Cinerama Dome and their botched 3D presentations of both “The Avengers” and “The Amazing Spiderman”. No, they are not using the RealD system. And, there are other theater chains that use another system as well. I’m leveling my “bitches” at them. So, in your argument you are recommending RealD as the only presentation free of flaws, no scratched glasses and child friendly.
Unfortunately, first hand, I have been to Regal and was not made aware of the “child size” glasses. Perhaps they ran out. I don’t know.
Also, if there is this constant practice of your theater chain doing “much less revenue” time, and time again with 3D presentations then why persist? I am not aware of one business model that allows themselves to not improve upon their numbers. I would think the studios would see the writing on the wall and the theater owners ready to riot if this is the case.
Aside from all of that, RealD or not the glasses are not conducive for people who wear glasses and they are not made comfortable for every human head. Somewhere down the line someone forgot that not every child’s head is the same. It’s not like when one goes into getting glasses specifically fitted for them. Sure they are a temporary obstruction to maximize our entertainment value. But somehow it does not all jive and nor does the cost.
So, perhaps only one of my “bitches” is “mute” when it comes to your theater and the others that use RealD. But for the life of me I still cannot see where the end justifies the means.
Thank you for your input.