Commentary: Lazy film dimensions

Several movies in the past year have been redone in 3D, and for some avid fans, it has been a great thing. Classics such as ‘Star Wars,’ ‘The Lion King,’ and recently ‘Titanic’ have all been released in 3D in theatres. What is the point of this?

It simply is not rational to go see one of these movies in 3D for the average moviegoer. Unless you are in love with the movie, and are dying to see it in a three dimensional format, it does not make sense to go to the showing. At the theatre, a person can end up paying up to $13 per ticket (once the extra money for 3D is added), another possible $10 per person in food, and money for gas when driving however many miles to the movie theatre. Instead, one could rent the regular movie (made as it was intended) for a few bucks, stay in the comfort of their own home, and even order pizza for the entire family for the same or lesser price. It does not make sense to spend extra money to see a replica of the same movie in 3D.

What is the big fascination with 3D anyway? Everyday life is in 3D, so what is so special if a movie can be viewed the same way? Personally, I am tired of seeing everything in 3D, it is nice to sit in front of a screen and enjoy some 2D for awhile.

Remaking a movie in 3D is taking away from the original work of the director.  Changing the hand drawn animation of the Lion King into a 3D adaptation is quite different than the original.  I am sure the animators who slaved while drawing the scene by scene images were quite aghast when they discovered that a 3D adaptation was being made.  Experiencing ‘The Lion King’ in 3D is almost like experiencing ‘Avatar’ as a claymation film, it does not make any sense.

I must admit that not all of these 3D adaptations are pointless. It does make sense why movies such as ‘Titanic’ are redone in 3D.  This movie has a lot to gain by being in a 3D format. The viewers of the movie can feel like they are actually a part of the action and on the ship (even though that might be a frightening thing.) In instances such as the ‘Titanic,’ a lot can be gained from 3D, but running a classic cartoon such as ‘The Lion King’ is unacceptable.

The confusing thing to me is how any of these movies make money. It seems like the target audience for these reconstructed 3D movies would be fans who love the movies, which is quite a select group. These remakes are not going to pull in the average fan wanting to see a new concept, or even someone who may have simply liked (but not loved) the original film. The only people that are going to pay the money to see these films in 3D are the people who were obsessed fans of the original film. Even they might be upset at their favorite movie being remade, and decide not to go.

By supporting remakes, we are just fueling a system that will find anyway to make a quick buck, in this instance, copying a movie into a 3D format. The movie industry already remakes films enough as it is, with new versions of horror movies made almost every single year. By making old movies into 3D films, they are being even lazier than before.  At least when a film is remade, it has plot alterations, new characters, and just simply borrows the plot. It is almost as if the movie industry has gotten to the point where all ideas are exhausted, and they have to remake the same movie into a different visual format to make money. It is quite a sad thing for movie enthusiasts.

If you are going to go to the theatre in the near future, go see a new movie with an original concept. Or even better, save your hard earned money, stay in with some friends, and rent a movie. Do not fuel the movie industries plot to make a quick buck; it is only perpetuating them to make more of these 3D replicas. If we all boycott this laziness, maybe one day movies will go back to having original concepts that are fresh to moviegoers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>