We went with our whole family, including my parents, to see the new Pixar movie “Up” over the weekend. While the film was touching, funny, beautiful and scary, I am wondering how it would have been if we hadn’t paid the $3 extra a person to see it in 3D? Would we have lost any of the storytelling elements not shelling out the extra dough?
I am aggravated by this summer’s big trend of making EVERY kids’ movie a 3D extravaganza demanding more of your money.
I hate paying an extra $12 on top of the approximately $32 we’re already paying to get in. (At this point Lilina still gets in for free.) They don’t give you the option to bring your 3D glasses from home and not pay the $3 again!
Plus the baby doesn’t want to leave on the 3D glasses so she’s either watching a blurry screen or is left home out of the fun.
Yes, you can choose to see the movies in just 2D, but then I’m wondering the whole time how important are the 3D effects to the story? Should you even go if you’re not going to pop for the 3D?
The movie makers claim the 3D effects are very important to the story telling.
A recent article in Entertainment Weekly reports:
”We want you to feel more like you are in the movie, rather than watching 3-D.” Jon Landau, James Cameron’s longtime producing partner, has the same hopes for Avatar. ”With Titanic, I would tell people we were using technology to make people feel a part of history,” he says. ”With Avatar, we want to use technology to transport people to another world.”
However, I am suspicious — and Entertainment Weekly confirms my suspicions – that the 3D genre isn’t as much about amazing story telling, as it is about studios desperately trying to bring people back into the theaters instead of watching movies on DVD at home.
From the same article in EW:
”In order to bring people back to the movie theaters, we’ve got to do something exceptional – we have to raise the bar,” Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks’ CEO, says of the strategy behind the 3-D surge. ”I really believe this could turn the tide Hollywood’s way.”
And Hollywood has truly embraced this genre as a savior. Here are the 3D movies from this summer:
Monsters vs. Aliens, March 27
Battle for Terra, May 1
Up, May 29
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, July 1
G-Force, July 24
Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D, Aug. 28
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Sept. 18
Toy Story in 3-D, Oct. 2
Disney’s A Christmas Carol, Nov. 6
Avatar, Dec. 18
Plus according to EW:
“The biggest news is that both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 will be released as a 3-D double feature on Oct. 2, and that the special presentation will play for two weeks only. Previously, Disney had planned to release the movies separately. Disney also revealed that Tim Burton’s 3-D reimagining of Alice in Wonderland will be shown in IMAX 3-D in addition to regular 3-D, and that the 1991 classic Beauty and the Beast will be rereleased — yes, in 3-D — on Feb. 12, 2010.”
So how do you feel about this 3D trend in kids’ movies? Is it really about telling the best story possible or is it about creating an experience that people can’t repeat in their homes to make them come to the theater? And if that’s the case is that necessarily a bad thing? Here are some questions to consider:
1. Am I the only parent aggravated by this costly 3D trend?
2. Are you OK with paying $3 extra for the 3D effects?
3. Did the 3D effects make “Monsters vs. Aliens” better?
4. Did the 3D effects make “Up” better?
5. Do you decide with each movie whether you’re going to see it in 3D versus 2D or if it’s offered in 3D you will always choose that?
6. Should you just be able to use your old 3D glasses and not have to pay the surcharge? (I think the surcharge is actually being used to add more 3D projectors to theaters. Atlanta is lucky (?) to have so many around the city.)
7. Do you leave the glasses at the theater or bring them home?