FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: 3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Round 1
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane
Filmmakers have been experimenting with 3D for decades.
MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane. Dan, thanks for coming.
DAN KEOHANE: Wanna watch me make a cigarette disappear up my nose?
MA: Er—maybe after the show. For those of you out there who don’t know, that’s one of Dan’s talents. He’s a pro when it comes to sleight of hand.
L.L. SOARES: I want to see Dan’s cigarette trick!
MA: We will, after the show, but right now we’ve got a fight to get to.
LS: You’re no fun.
MA: And proud of it!
Anyway, tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, we’ll be having the great 3D debate. That’s right, it’s 3D MOVIES vs. 2D MOVIES. Where do you weigh in on the recent onslaught of 3D movies? Do you love ‘em, or do you hate ‘em?
Dan, we’ll start with you. Are these new 3D movies the best things you’ve ever seen? Are they the future of motion pictures?
DK: The future?
No, not really, not if we still have to wear glasses and pay extra money to see the films, because if this were the case, then I wouldn’t want every movie to be filmed in 3-D. We’re only beginning to see digital movies shown in theaters anyway, and once they’re all digital then the picture quality on the big screen will be so much clearer.
Besides, I seriously don’t want to be putting on those clunky glasses every time I sit down in the movie theater. They make my eyes water.
MA: I don’t like the glasses either.
If these movies all looked like AVATAR (2009), then I’d actually argue that they would be the future of motion pictures, but they don’t all look like AVATAR. I’m assuming it’s too expensive for these other 3D movies to have the kind of effects that AVATAR sported.
The 3D effects in AVATAR were the best I’d ever seen. They totally blew me away! Problem is, no movie after AVATAR has even come close. TOY STORY 3D came closest, but that one was all animated.
LS: Throughout its history, beginning in the 1950s with movies like HOUSE OF WAX (1953), up until now, 3D has been a gimmick to bring audiences into the theaters. With the advent of television, the movies lost a chunk of their audience and had to find a way to get people paying for movie tickets again. 3D was one of the biggest gimmicks, created just for this reason.
MA: Thanks for the history lesson! Should we take notes?
LS: I’ll give you notes! (Throws a notebook at him, and it flies past MA towards audience in perfect 3D fashion.)
DK: Anyone want to see me jam a Q-tip into one ear and pull it out the other?
MA: I haven’t seen you do that one. Is it in 3D?
LS: Pay attention you two!
While 3D could be fun, most filmmakers who used it had little imagination and the majority of films just had objects coming at you, like the paddleball in HOUSE OF WAX. It really added nothing to the story, and you had to wear annoying glasses. Once in a while it was fun to don the red and green lenses to see a 3D movie, but it was nothing anyone wanted to do on a regular basis. This, combined with the fact that nobody really knew what to do with the technology, led to its demise. 3D has resurfaced several times since; it seems to return every other decade or so.
Don your glasses. It's the notorious "paddle ball" sequence from HOUSE OF WAX (1953)
MA: I remember a few 3D films popping up in the early 1980s, and at the same time several UHF stations— remember those?—- started the gimmick of showing 3D movies on TV, and you had to get your glasses at your local supermarket or convenience store, or something or other, but neither of these 3D experiences caught on. It was nothing like it is now. Of course, the technology and quality are better today.
LS: With AVATAR (2009), James Cameron proved he was one of the few filmmakers who had enough imagination (and money) to use 3D to its fullest potential, creating a whole 3D world to play around in. And that movie’s success has led to the latest round of 3D movies.
MA: Would you like to see all movies eventually shot in 3D?
LS: Nah!
Aside from a rare instance, like AVATAR, I don’t see any reason for movies to be continued to be made in 3D. Occasionally, a movie uses it in an interesting way, like CORALINE (2009), where the 3D was very subtle and just added great depth to everything – throughout the movie. But in most cases it just comes to the forefront for a few “gotcha” scenes and then fades back into the background. And don’t even get me started on movies that were not meant to be 3D, which have the effect added afterwards, and which look just plain awful.
MA: We’ll talk about that in a little bit.
LS: I am not a fan of 3D and I am looking forward to its next demise.
MA: I’m not a fan either, although if they all looked like AVATAR, then I might feel differently. Moving right along, is this just a fad? Will 3D movies disappear again, or are they here to stay this time?
DK: It’s definitely a fad. Companies are filming, or converting, movies in 3D because people are willing still to pay the extra money for them, but 3D is not making the movies better. That’s still a requirement, regardless of how it’s shown on the screen. Thing is, people are going to stop paying the premium for this.
LS: We’ve been watching 2D movies for almost a century now. It’s been just fine. 3D is just a distraction. Unless every single movie that comes out has the budget and technical know-how to use to it well, like AVATAR, then its’ a waste of time, and a useless fad.
MA: I agree.
Okay, folks, we’re out of time. Looks like Round 1 goes to 2D movies. Tune in next Friday night to see if 3D movies fare any better, as we continue the great 3D debate with Round 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!
See you then! Good night, everybody!
—END—
