I've mentioned before the current 3-D hype that I'm a 3-D dork, and I've mentioned it again a time or two since it began.
I think the first one I saw was a revival showing of Gun Fury, but I also saw a lot of the early '80s 3-D trend movies in the theater at the time.
I think 3-D is frickin' awesome.
And I've mentioned, such as in 3-D news, that there remain projects upcoming, being developed in 3-D.
If you want my guess, I'd say that Green Lantern just happened to be the superhero movie already in development when 3-D got the extra hype from Avatar and that no special attention went to that thinking, but look at these classic covers and tell me there's a superhero who is a better fit to 3-D.
But it seems like the movie industry is trying to burn as much money out of it as possible. It seems an expectation that this new wave of success is another version of the every 25 years booms we've seen before now.
Decisions such as hastily transitioning Clash of the Titans to 3-D seems to have given even more power to the 3-D skeptic crowds. And I will say that it wasn't the reviews of the 3-D that convinced me to see Clash of the Titans in 2-D, it was something simpler and yet more potentially ominous for the studio.
I noted that in my casual reading of reviews, everyone who saw it in 3-D skewed toward a negative review and everyone who saw it in 2-D skewed toward positive. The hacked together 3-D seems - quite unscientifically - to have affected people's overall feeling toward the movie.
This means, I will be seeing Clash of the Titans in 2-D and possibly get my 3-D fix with How to Train Your Dragon.
In My Problem with 3D, Pat Piper wrote, "If you're going to do 3D, then by God do 3D. Have shit jump out at me and make me duck into my popcorn. Give me back Friday the 13th III in 3D with eyeballs flying at me and Treasure of the Four Crowns. If you're going to shoot something in 3D, make me feel it. Don't tell me that 3D adds depth. That's just a bullshit attempt of making 3D seem legit. Good cinematography adds depth."
There's truth to that, but I can't go that far. I thought Coraline looked fantastic in 3-D and it didn't bother with those kinds of things.
And, hey, rumor has it that Comin' At Ya! will eventually get re-release, which should more than feed the hunger of everyone wanting to just see 3-D effects.
2010 is a different world than 1982. Movies are released on a massive number of screens. Now movies can easily be shown in both 2-D and 3-D, to satisfy the needs of people with issues surrounding 3-D, a personal distaste, motion sickness, headaches, lack of depth perception, etc. There no longer needs to be an either/or situation.
3-D is not right for every movie, and it's certainly not right for movies that weren't developed and shot in 3-D.
But it is a tool, and I think it's a fun tool. I'd like to see it be something that sticks around and is something we get a consistent flow of occasional 3-D movies. For those movies that the people making them can come up with a way to make it work for their cinematic needs.
Frankly, if I ever get to shoot Gaunt Land as a feature, I'd very much like to do it in 3-D right now.
And I admit I'm still curious, despite the consistency of the bad reviews, about the 3-D transition process. But I'm not curious enough to throw out the possibility of enjoying a movie I haven't seen. I'll wait until they do something annoying like re-release Star Wars in 3-D.
Right now, it's only the hardcore movie geek community giving the anti-3-D trend rumbling, but it'll spread fast if things continue this way.
Although that could be until the next exciting, well-done 3-D movie comes. Hopefully.
Will that be Tron: Legacy?
I'll be interested to see.