Reasons For The Cessation Of The Murkification Of Modern Cinema

Less than 1600 meters outside the educational green cube of Penn State Lehigh Valley, there stands a concrete giant which hosts multiple screenings of motion pictures which have been photographed in a way that qualifies them to hold the peppy marketing moniker of “the 3D Experience.” Such an “experience” must be seen through state-of-the-art Steve Urkel sunglasses that make any form of light dimmer than it normally would be. Such an “experience,” more often than not, adds nothing to moviegoing and sometimes results in aches of the head, of the stomach, and of the eyes. Such an “experience” costs considerably more to see than an old-timey 2D movie because such an “experience” is merely the result of desperate producers’ untamed proclivity for a big box office turnout. Such an “experience” must be revealed for what it is before the art of the cinema loses its credibility and before Avatar 2: Da-Ba-Dee-Da-Ba-Dye is released and James Cameron transforms a large fraction of humanity into Technicolor zombie mushroom soup creatures waiting for the gangly ethnic alien’s arm to reach out from the dusty, opaque megaplex screen.

We begin with the deadening dimness of “the 3D Experience.” According to stereoscopic display inventor Lenny Lipton (who is responsible for creating the polarized-lens RealD glasses used for watching 3D movies), “because [3D cinema] projects two separate pictures, viewers lose half their light (half to one eye and half to the other). Then, the darkly coated polarized 3D glasses that decode the images and give them depth dim the movie further.” While this might be a viable explanation for the dimness, that doesn’t relieve 3D movies from being a decidedly caliginous screening. Especially when you compare 3D to 2D in the realm of cinema where, in a landslide, 2D is the better watch. I remember reluctantly seeing TRON: Legacy in 3D with my friends last December on the singular condition that I didn’t have to pay to get in due to my employment at Rave Motion Pictures. And, several times during the 125-minute movie, I remember taking off my gawky, recyclable RealD specs and being able to see the exciting visuals just fine without them. The only difference? Yes, good citizens, you guessed it! It wasn’t dim anymore. It was brighter, crisper, more realistic and less morbid than the TRON: Legacy world through 3D glasses.

But not only does “the 3D Experience” impair the quality of the movie, it can also cause damage to your body. According to RealD spokesman Rick Heineman, “Headaches and nausea were the main reasons 3D technology never took off before.” In addition, Dr. Deborah Friedman of the University of Rochester Medical Center concluded this from her studies: “The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies are not exactly calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are. If your eyes are a little off to begin with, then it's really throwing a whole degree of effort that your brain now needs to exert" (Red). Why would anyone risk their health for this “experience,” considering that most 3D movies are not worth seeing in the first place (e.g. such cinematic marvels as Saw 3D, Gulliver’s Travels, andThe Last Airbender)? Chances are you’re more likely to see a great movie in 2D format than in 3D format since there hasn’t been a good 3D movie out since Toy Story 3 which, believe it or not, was also available in the standard two dimensions as well when it was in theaters. This way, you had the option of saving money on a non-3D ticket and a better chance of leaving the cinema without a debilitating headache, stomach cramp, or manic urge to gouge your aching eyes out with a distended popcorn kernel.

Speaking of saving money, we have officially arrived at the peanut butter-laden nerve center of the moronic Reese’s cup that is the 3D cinema: money. After the unprecedented success of James Cameron’s 3D marvel Avatar as well as the surprise success of Pixar’s high-flying animation movie How To Train Your Dragon, ticket prices for 3D films skyrocketed by 20 percent, according to The Christian Science Monitor. Coincidence? I think not. Ironically, there have only been a handful of decent films released in 3D since the successes of Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon. The rest? You might as well go snorkeling in a septic tank. It’d be cheaper and more memorable in the long run than shelling out $15 to see Drive Angry 3D. What this ultimately shows is that American movie studios think they’ve found the way to make big bucks and are exploiting this third class gimmick as much as they can before people realize they can see a better movie for a better price without putting on a pair of disorienting blinders. This is despicable. It undermines the importance of film in society and makes American film look like a contemptible joke in the grand scheme of things. What’s even more depressing is that a great many people are completely oblivious to all the negative aspects of 3D movies. Working at Rave Motion Pictures, I’ve seen people ask for 3D movie tickets and look like they’ve seen the ghost of Richard Nixon when I tell them the total price. Yet they pay it anyway and, at times, are indifferent or unsatisfied with what their money just bought. It really sickens me to know that movies like The King’s Speech or 127 Hours are probably going to be overlooked because the 3D gimmick has pulled in the apathetic moviegoer, who will be seeing the so-so Mars Needs Momsinstead of The King’s Speech, which won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

What do film experts think about 3D movies? Legendary Oscar-winning screenwriter-director Francis Ford Coppola believes that 3D is simply just a way “to make you pay more money. I don't see why a movie is better in 3D.” Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert thinks, “3D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.” Perhaps others feel differently, but I am with these two in saying that 3D should not have a permanent place in any form of cinema. It hurts your body, worsens a film’s visuals, and emaciates your finances. These are the three facets of a three-dimensional moviegoing “experience.”