The Many Dimensions of 3-D

Today I want to explore one of the most vexing movie trends of my time. Let's talk about 3-D.

If these people from the '50s saw "Avatar," I think they'd wet themselves.

Hey, all you '90s children - remember when "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over" came out, and all of us 12-year-olds couldn't believe it was in 3-D? How cool was that gonna be, right? (The exponential decline of the "Spy Kids" series aside, of course.) Do you remember a world in which 3-D movies were occasional, and therefore all the more exciting? I do. And I want to know what in the name of celluloid happened. Why does every computer-animated sequel these days have to be in 3-D? Seeing a movie in 3-D used to be a treat, and now it's a gimmick. This annoys me to no end, not because I have something against 3-D film, but because the majority of fantasy/animated movies will look just as beautiful - and less cluttered - without 3-D film. I think there are movies which lend themselves to 3-D quite nicely, but also some that I would never, ever want to experience. I now offer a list of examples further explaining what I consider to be appropriate 3-D applications.

Good 3-D: "Avatar," 2009

This movie, to me, is the current yardstick against which all other 3-D films should be measured. The 3-D works because it enriches the setting, feel, and overall epic experience of the movie. It's consistent and clean-looking, and you can tell it's not just in there for shock value. I saw it in 3-D with my dad, and we found ourselves trying to swat the on-screen insects of Pandora. Ok, I realize I've set the bar pretty high here, so you might be saying, "Well of course, there's nowhere to go but down now," but just hear me out.

Mediocre 3-D (most of today's movies): "Alice in Wonderland," 2010

Don't get me wrong here. The visual effects of "Alice" are completely stunning, but you can tell almost immediately that this movie was not translated to 3-D for the same purposes as "Avatar." There are scenes in the movie that were obviously included just for the 3-D shock value (Oh no! That croquet ball is flying RIGHT AT ME!!!), and they're not even that compelling. I first saw this movie in 3-D, and then the second time I saw it in good old-fashioned 2-D. By the time I saw it in 2-D, I had totally forgotten I had ever seen it in 3-D - that's how forgettable it was. A classic example of what we're seeing in today's theaters: pretty at the time, weak in retrospect.

Bad 3-D: "Titanic," 2012

Your eyes do not deceive you. It's happening. According to James Cameron, a 3-D version of "Titanic" is in the works - look for it in 2012, the 100th anniversary of the real Titanic's disaster. Let me just start by saying, I absolutely adore "Titanic." I even have the geeky 3-disc edition boxed up in fancy, royal blue plastic. But in 3-D? Uh-uh. I'm not saying I don't have faith in the quality of the 3-D conversion, because I totally do - knowing Cameron, it's probably going to look beautiful. But let's take a little stroll down memory lane and think back to when we all saw the original "Titanic" in 1997. Audience members bawling, Celine Dion keening... it was intense enough back then. Can you imagine how brutal it's gonna be now? The movie is already visually overwhelming, along with emotionally wrenching - convert it to 3-D and you've got a movie that's too busy to look at, too in-your-face to escape. And then there's the matter of tastefulness. Sure, the first two hours will probably be a blast. But in that last hour, when 1500 terrified people start jumping to their deaths and shooting themselves in the head, it's no longer fun - it's frightening and, dare I say, tacky and even disrespectful. Not gonna lie, I'm probably gonna go see it (I never got to see it in the theater - I was only seven at the time, and my parents decided I was too little to sit through a 3-hour movie, let alone one so scarring), but I'll be replacing my 3-D glasses with critic goggles. I just think it's a bad idea, man. Sincerely.

Am I just an old-fashioned square? Let me know what you think.