I saw my first 3D movie over the weekend, the animated Despicable Me starring the voices of Steve Carell (The Office, The 40-Year-Old Virgin), Will Arnett (Arrested Development), and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall and other Judd Apatow films). I have to say: I was moderately impressed. Not only with the film, which I actually thought was really good, but also with the 3D effects.
Admittedly, I'm a little jaded. When I think of 3D movies, I think of movies like 1953's House of Wax and audience members that look like this guy, and I just lose respect. But we've all heard by now that 3D has been making a roaring comeback, so it was worth finding out what all the fuss was.
Turns out 3D movies have generated a third of all film revenue this year, and a 3D movie topped the box offices for 10 of the first 14 weeks of 2010. Not bad considering a 3D movie ticket (even in a bad economy) makes people shell out about twice as much cash ($15) than for 2D flicks.
But not all 3D may be alike. While stunners like Avatar (and the movie I saw) were filmed and/or produced in 3D from the get-go, some movies marketed using the same language were only converted to 3D after the fact--a fact that may degrade your viewing experience. Movies like Clash of the Titans got ripped by critics for providing a lackluster experience (the word "passable" is probably not good enough when you want to provide a rich experience for your audience).
So what can you do? Research. A great place to start is the New York Times "Movies" section. And you might do well to stick with movies filmed in 3D, but some converted movies--like Alice in Wonderland--got fine marks on its 3D presentation. The best thing to do is to listen to the critics. Because, as we know, critics are never wrong.
--Brandon
Photo from this photostream and used with permission of a Creative Commons license.
Post new comment