There’s a hot debate in the filmmaking world these days: to 3D or not to 3D. The New York Times is reporting that there are some 60+ 3D movies currently in the works. And by the end of 2010, there will be more theatres to view them. 12.5% of the country’s movie theaters are expected to have gone digital in the next several months in order to handle the 3D boom. But many filmmakers believe that 3D films take away from a true movie experience and are resisting demand by Hollywood studios to create them.
We’ve come a long way since those flimsy paper 3D “glasses” popularized between 1950-1980. Movies like Avatar, My Bloody Valentine and even potentially Justin Bieber 3D are keenly suited for a duck-and-cover movie-going experience. So do filmmakers have a valid point in challenging the cinematic purity of the trend? Should we need eyewear to fully experience Middle Earth in The Hobbit? Or a saloon town in a Western? And what happens if rom-coms or legal dramas start getting the 3D treatment? I won’t even broach the subject of love scenes or period piece tearjerkers. Or sad, awkward love scenes from the 1800’s.
According to the article, filmmakers voiced their concerns at ComicCon this past week. More will be revealed as to whether moviegoers (and couch potatoes, via 3D TV) will will opt for standard film or if studios will continue to ride the 3D wave with new releases and redux classics galore. Citizen Kane, you’d better watch out.
So can filmmakers successful resist Hollywood’s 3D push? I doubt it. What do you think? Please post a note in the comments.
Leave a Reply