Sunday, 23 January 2011

3D Movies - It's RANT time!

The Green Hornet - great film. But in 3D? Impressive. Initially. Then twenty minutes later it annoyed the shit out of me. Not again. 3D movies really do put you there... if you wanted to be put fifty years into the past. Make movies, not spectacles.

It's why Avatar, in the long run, turned out to be a bit shit. It was great on that initial viewing because of the whole spectacle and the new 3D stuff, but ultimately it turned out to be a shallow story with dull two dimensional characters who were there to serve the special effects. I mean, come on. If I wanted a colourful spectacle I'd go and see a fireworks display.

You can't really excuse the triteness of some films because they made money to make other films, because that's the only reason why the big production companies make them - to make as much money as they can, and they'll produce any old tut and use any old gimmick to get people in the theatres to watch the films so that they can fill their coffers. This means that future big movies aren't created on merit but on market research and demographics which has turned studios into industrial mass-marketing machines of money-making mediocrity.

I think James Cameron saw an angle and went for it, made a an (initially) stunning visual feast and opened the floodgates for more fireworks displays. Now people are so wrapped up in the spectacle, the movie itself partially passes them by so characters, plot and development go out the window in favour of a dead scuba divers in a shark mouth reaching out of the screen with a grenade in their hand, to make the audience react physically and not emotionally. Sure, some films are probably made to utilise the 3D (I only saw it in 2D but I imagine Tron looked amazing in 3D - and, yeah, it was a great film) and any other technology but I think they fool themselves into thinking the movie will have any longevity after the 'wow' factor has worn off.

And the money being pumped into these spectacles are denying other films their chance, because studios won't want to do a 3D movie of a family drama, or a political thriller, or a slow-moving sci-fi epic. They just want wam-bam-thank you for your cash-maam. I understand that they're a business, but forcing the little guy out is the same as building a faceless Tescos or Wal-Mart in the middle of the city and watching the small personal-service shops dwindle and die, only visited by those who care and hardly making an impact or closing completely.

Now, movies that use technology the accentuate the film - fine. Subtle effects, tweaks and even full blown events to make a point, fine. But making it a technological marvel in spite of the movie immediately destroys any credibility the movie might have had.