nelsoncarvajal.com/blog

 

A new age is on us; the digital revolution is sweeping theatre exhibitors across the country.  There might soon be a time when such dreck as a possible "Soul Plane 2" could very well be in stunning 3-D.  Having recently seen Director Eric Brevig's "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D" and experiencing a sleeve-less Brendan Fraser, I was reminded at the cost a film can pay when it is rendered for 3D.  The cost is in the narrative, the plot--the actual merit of the work itself.

This has to be something that is decided early in preproduction.  Before a single frame is filmed.

There's something campy and Saturday morning-ish about movies in 3D.  "Journey" claims to be about the Jules Verne novel, but it uses the premise of the center of the Earth as an excuse to shoot crappy CGI over the audience's heads with some impressive 3D work.  The movie is all spectacle and I cannot imagine watching it without the advantage of 3D.  What a refund demand that must be at the Box Office afterward.

Ebert, however, shared his thoughts in his recent review: "Yes, the movie is available in 3-D in "selected theaters." Select those theaters to avoid. With a few exceptions (such as the authentic IMAX process), 3-D remains underwhelming to me -- a distraction, a disappointment and more often than not offering a dingy picture [...] ("Journey") is being shown in 2-D in most theaters, and that's how I wish I had seen it. Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth. Then I could have appreciated the work of the plucky actors, who do a lot of things right in this movie, of which the most heroic is keeping a straight face."

But the film would fail miserably in 2D.  "Journey" on 35mm would surely share a spot near "Zohan" and "Jumper" at the top of 2008's worst films list.

 

 
Yet Hollywood is persistent.  Last November, Acadaemy Award-Winning Director Robert Zemeckis ("Forrest Gump") boldly tried to make an award-worthy epic with his "Beowulf 3D," an ultimately forgettable and angrily loud mess of a sleeper.  With an A-list cast and crew, Zemeckis churned out the kind of Sunday night movie event FOX used to have in the 90s after new "Simpsons" episodes.  All fluff and no force.

Was "Beowulf" better than "Journey" without 3D?  Yes.  But it was a mediocre achievement. 

But while watching "Journey" there were even coming trailers/attractions that were in 3D.  More and more theatre-chains are converting to digital presentations, which is great.  But the problem is that it gives studios more incentive to slap "3D" on scripts; thus dumbing down the film to only having eye-popping visuals an no other weight.

But that's 3D: A blessing and a curse. 

I wonder if that's why Zemeckis went with the subject matter he chose.