3D: Dramatic Discovery or Distraction?

BY DARIAN SABLON AND NOAH CASTAGNA

3D technology has thrived for decades in American cinema, but films such as Avatar and The Polar Express aided in a resurgence for the medium, bringing 3D to the forefront of modern film. Some filmgoers feel it allows for an expansion upon the art of film, providing filmmakers with a method to convey the art of cinema concisely, while others argue the technology relies more on gimmicks and detracts from the art of the industry.

Distraction: Noah

When faced with Robert Rodriguez’s cinematography, it’s hard to argue against the validity of 3D technology. Sharkboy and Lavagirl crashed and burned with its over the top plot and overuse of 3D and CGI. Rodriguez gave 3D yet another chance to shine with Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over, which single handedly killed what had begun as a fairly strong family spy franchise. And just to pin the final nail in the coffin, Rodriguez brought us the masterpiece that was Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D, single handedly insulting every Spielberg, Tarantino, and Scorsese out there with the same overreliance on “new” and “inventive” technology. The truth of it all is that 3D is not new, inventive, or fresh, especially when utilized in a majority of films released today. Directors feel the need to fall back on this gimmicky, cheap tool to draw audiences in with the allure of something new. “Artists” like Rodriguez degrade everything that makes film special. When a film as terrible as Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over can make $111.7 million simply because it has a two letter acronym in its title, it becomes blatantly apparent that 3D is simply meant to make money, not craft a work of art.

Not only does 3D degrade film to a medium built to churn out garbage for whatever money it can muster, as it also distracts from the art of film that directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, and Nolan can produce. Movies such as Avatar, Gravity, and even The Polar Express are built as spectacles, and 3D technology accomodates this incredibly well, helping to deliver an impressive phenomenon. However, movies such as Avatar are few and far between, and a majority of 3D films are simply lazy conversions meant to generate revenue.

Dramatic Discovery: Darian

Although technically 3D movies were invented during the early 1900s, 3D movies truly took form during the 1990s and especially during the 2000s with movies such as Sharkboy and Lavagirl and later into more popular movies such as Avatar and The Polar Express. In all honesty, the movie industry is better off with it. When the movie industry first started, it was seen as a way to immerse the viewer into another reality, and to truly become one with the picture. In one reported showing of a short film during the early 1900s, viewers literally jumped out of their seats when they saw a train in the film coming straight at them. Yet with the constant exposure to film over such a large period of time, that sense of realism has been lost and all we see when we go the movies is a screen with pictures, not another universe that you can take part in. Yet 3D technology gives the audience back that feeling of literally being part of the movie.

Some may argue that 3D movies detract from the “art” of movies and that 3D movies are only a studio cash grab and forget about the quality of the movie itself. Those against 3D movies will obviously bring up movies like Spy Kids 3: Game Over and Spy Kids: All The Time In the World 4D – movies that everyone knows are complete garbage. Yet, saying that almost all movies that are in 3D are bad movies is simply incorrect, but it’s the same thing for 2D movies. For every Spy Kids 3 there is a Star Wars Episode 7:The Force Awakens, a Nightmare Before Christmas, an Up, a Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince, Avatar, How To Drain Your Dragon, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Despicable Me 2, Kung Fu Panda 2, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2, Guardians of The Galaxy and so on. So, unlike what most people think, just because a movie is filmed in 3D doesn’t mean it’ll be necessarily bad.

There is also the aesthetic complaint that “the glasses look weird” or that “they don’t fit quite right on my face.” Well, the simple answer is this: you’re only going to wear the glasses for two to three hours – it’s not like the theater is forcing you to wear these glasses on the street, so the aesthetic of the glasses doesn’t really matter. Also, the movie theater have different size glasses, if the one given doesn’t fit exactly, stop complaining and ask for another pair that fits. The usher isn’t going to scream at you and say no if asked to get another size 3D glasses.

So overall, 3D movies not only help the audience feel as if they are part of the movie and are an integral part of the movie, but around half of the 3D movies are critically acclaimed, contrary to what those who are against 3D movies say. Additionally, those who worry about the aesthetic of the glasses have no reason to be so worried since in two hours or so they are going to throw the glasses away.