Monday, October 12, 2009

"Cabin in the Woods" delayed for no good reason at all; or why I hate 3-D

Late last week, it was announced that the release of Joss Whedon's highly-anticipated horror flick, "Cabin in the Woods," would be delayed an entire year. Originally scheduled for February 5, 2010, the film now won't hit theaters until Jan. 14, 2011. Why? Because early response to the film has been so good, MGM has decided to make it even better by making it 3-D.

Sweet fancy Moses, this just makes me cranky. Not only because now I have to wait a whole damn year, but more importantly, because no movie has ever been made better for being rendered in 3-D. Sure, it's kind of a cool effect and when it works properly, it's mildly intriguing to go, "Oooh, it's like Harry Potter's pointing his wand right at me!" and then giggling for a few minutes because it sounds dirty but that's it. There is no other redeeming feature about 3-D at all.

If I want my entertainment in three-dimensions, I'll go to a little something called a theatre where there are actors on this other thing called a stage. (Sometimes, there's even what's known as a thrust stage where the stage extends into the audience and it's almost like the stage is coming right at me!!) Also, all of the people in the story have been rendered by God or Darwin or plastic surgeons into actual three-dimensional beings that move and talk. It's very realistic.

Now, just to avoid problems in the future, I'd like to ask the entertainment industry to please refrain from making or re-making the following films and/or TV shows in 3-D:

Citizen Kane
Any Fellini film, because who needs nightmares like that for the rest of their lives?
Jimmy Durante movies
Gerard Depardieu movies
Anything with sword fighting
Anything with cannons or large rockets, speaking of which:
Apollo 11
Boogie Nights

Oh, and I too late on that one?

In short, I don't want to have to wait a year to see "Cabin in the Woods" and I really hate 3-D.

What do you think? Are you a fan of that third dimension?


Anonymous said...

ugh! Some people can't watch movies in 3D without getting physically ill so they've just lost some potential viewers.

emily said...

The only 3-D movie that's really wowed me was Coraline, but in general I'm not a huge fan. It's a gimmick, the tickets cost more, and those stupid glasses are a pain to wear over regular glasses.

Kelley B said...

Great! This little stunt has just ensured I will feel nauseated and have a splitting headache upon leaving the theater. I'm with you...I hate 3-D. Why the sudden industry-push for it to be the format for EVERYTHING?

Dana Detrick-Clark from Serious Vanity Music said...

Thank you for saying this! I was starting to feel like the only person on the planet who realized we were all already in 3D, and even without the awful glasses.

It's like Hollywood doesn't remember a little thing called The 1980's when 3D was a very short-lived fad that appealed to only a small part of the viewing population. So by 2011, not only will this movie have been delayed a year, but probably delayed a year for no reason, as 3D will probably be done like a 12-hour pot roast.

The Acrobatic Flea said...

As another of the people rendered nauseus by 3D, I'm right pissed about this current fad for "3D". How can it be an advancement if (a) you have to wear daft glasses and (b) the picture quality suffers!

crone51 said...

I kind of enjoy it. At least in its latest incarnation. I have never seen a live action film in 3-d - I might not like that as much..

verification word "dissog". I like it.

El said...

I wasn't a fan of 3D until I saw Coraline. Granted, not many scenes were in 'proper' 3D and could have easily done without, but those that were looked truly phenomenal. I was even willing to put up with the headache I got from the stupid glasses to go and see it in 3D a second time! :)

Tallscreen said...

I love 3D. I always have, and in fact I even take my own 3D photographs. The problem is that there are good and bad ways of filming in 3D. You can't just compose a shot as you would normally, but use a 3D camera.

Our eyes are used to both focussing on and converging on (ie. both pointing at) the same object. The problem with 3D is that our eyes always focus on the screen, where the image lies, but are forced to converge in front of or behind the screen to experience the 3D effect.

For this reason, 3D images should be composed with the main subject of the image as close to the plane of the screen as possible, to avoid straining people's eyes by forcing them to do things they're not used to doing. The eye-strain doesn't come from 3D - it comes from bad 3D.

In this case, they're taking a film which was shot with no consideration of the 3D process and forcing the 3D effect on it. Inevitably it will be an eye-strainer.

Jenn said...

I enjoy 3D. But if I want to see a movie with some of my friends, I can't see a 3D movie because their eyes cannot comprehend fake 3D. Many people with depth perception and visual processing issues can't see the 3D. (Remember Mallrats and the guy who couldn't see the hidden image- it's like that). Making a movie in 3D leaves out a lot of the population, and I hope they also offer it in 2D.

Rebekah said...

I'm not generally a fan of 3D. I usually find it distracting and headache-inducing. The only movie I've really appreciated the 3D in was Up. I loved that Pixar used the 3D more to make you feel like you were looking into the scene than to make things jump out at you. But that's Pixar. They put a tremendous amount of thought and planning into it, and did it well. Adding it after the fact to a movie? No thanks.

Tallscreen said...

I had a thought today. For those people who dislike 3D - I wonder if there'd be a market for 3D glasses in which both lenses are the same, so that both eyes see the same image and the film appears in 2D!

The Acrobatic Flea said...

While that seems like a sound idea, Tallscreen, I suspect a lot of the people who dislike 3D - like myself - probably already wear glasses; and the added nuisance of having to wear both pairs simultaneously simply adds to the general dislike of the 3D "experience" ;-D

Alex said...

Over at one of my very favorite blogs: "Here at 2D Goggles we like to keep up with the very latest technology, and we hear there is a great deal of excitement over the ‘3D experience’. I fail to see the thrill of this, as our mundane existence is already carried out in 3 dimensions."

Anonymous said...

Why don't they just release it in February as planned and then release a special 3-D version a year later in select theaters??? 3-D fans will watch it twice (or wait to see it) and the rest of us will get to see in in February as planned.