Killer Film on 3D

One of the most talked about aspects of going to theater this year was 3D. The technology experience a grand reemergence back from the 1980s with the rousing success of the film Avatar, followed by almost every other film trying to be 3D in post-conversion or actually shot in 3D. More selection, higher ticket prices, and then the fallout happened. Killer Film talks about 3D, but not from a critic standpoint, but from a movie-going experience. Is it worth it, now a year in? Find out…

Steve Brock: 3D can either by visual feast or a total waste of time. For instance, last Christmas I had to see Avatar in 3D and I’m really glad I did, for the technology drove the already-done Pocahontas theme.

Jon Peters: Avatar (here) was splendid in 3D, especially the IMAX presentation. Cameron knew the technology (here) and the pluses of using it (here). For live-action, and as of 2010, it’s the definitive example of why 3D is really fun and spectacular.

Steve Brock: One horror film movie I really liked in 3D was The Final Destination. Wonderfully cheesy, much in the tradition of The House of Wax (1953) with Vincent Price (In fact, I’d like to see our local art house have a showing of these older 3D films I missed because I’m so young). I was excited to have grisly devices coming at me in Saw 3D.

Jon Peters: Again, Saw 3D (here) followed the proper rules of using 3D – the RealD 3D. For the 3D, it was pretty decent. But when 3D is off, it sucks. It’s pretty simple, folks: RealD 3D is worth your dollar and post-conversion isn’t. Cry a foul that I don’t know that Avatar was post-conversion, but that was a billion dollar difference. Clash of the Titans (here) looked like a pop-up book, Alice in Wonderland (here) I soon forgot it was in 3D, Piranha 3D (here) was blah, and was The Last Airbender (here) in 3D? I know, I’m joking. At least Warner Bros. learned from their past errors in post-conversion 3D for Harry Potter 7 (here).

Steve Brock: [Earlier this summer] I was at a theater to see The Despicable Me, which was not in 3D there because Shrek–The Final Chapter was also showing and hogging the 3D theater. How Shrek-like! While the Despicable Me was fine (except for Steve Carrell’s poor Russian imitation), when I left the movie, I could not imagine how 3D might have been used in the movie. Moreover, I know the theaters employ 3D to increase traffic, but when I went to a list of the 3D movies for 2010, The Despicable Me was the only film on the list I’d seen to date (and that, as I already noted, was not in 3D as such). So I guess I’m an outlier there.

Jon Peters: Now, for me, Despicable Me (here) was an interesting situation. I really wanted to see it in 3D, but was unable too. Why? Most theaters are only equipped to show one 3D movie at a time and that over-crowded market – because everything has to be in 3D – leaves out some films in 2D. The film played in 3D a week later in the majority of my local cinemas.

With more and more 3D films coming out, space is limited (for now) and with the birth of 3D TVs for home use (here) and including the 13 newly released 3D Blu-rays of many of the titles we mentioned earlier, is the technology here to stay or will it forever be a gimmick? Look for more and further debate when films like Green Hornet, Thor, and more in 2011 as studios will double the 3D output from this year, so fans, are you still going to 3D films or have you tired of them? Comment below!