Fri 30 Apr
A sober-minded case against the viewing technology that’s captured the imagination of studio executives everywhere.
I’m not opposed to 3D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy.
For myself, I’m both leery of 3D and leery of dismissing it too quickly. I think that James Cameron is essentially correct when he asserts that serious and groundbreaking movies will be made with the possibilities that 3D technology offers. But I’m afraid that those will be few and far between — in the short run, anyway. Even Cameron’s “Avatar” seemed as if it would’ve been more enjoyable without the added dimensional illusion, and ultimately I wanted to see it in 2D before I really decided whether I liked it or not. 3D strikes me as a novel sensation not unlike a roller-coaster, except it goes on for two hours. I like roller-coasters, but I don’t want to ride even the very best of them for more than five minutes.