Why Moviegoers Should Boycott 3-D

What's the last movie you've seen where the 3-D (enhanced by those bulky, ridiculous glasses) wasn't crummy? OK, sure, "Avatar" looked gorgeous in standard 2-D and looked even "gorgeouser" in 3-D, projecting that awe and wonder you'd expect from a movie about blue people on an alien planet. Who wouldn't want to see Sigourney Weaver in 3-D??

But really, 3-D is a completely unnecessary cash-cow that adds nothing to the filmgoing experience. The way it's rendered, especially with the post-converted 3-D gimmick, looks murky and rather ugly. What's more, it costs $17.50 to see a movie in the worthless third dimension. We pay enough seeing a movie in its original dimension.

3-D existed in the 1950s before I was even a twinkle in my father's eye, but at least then it was all about the gimmick. Yo-yos popping out at you. Breasts jiggling in your face.

Come to think of it, "Piranha 3D" captured the gimmick perfectly: piranhas chomping Jerry O'Connell's already-severed penis IN OUR FACES and porn star boobs bouncing IN OUR FACES. What's not to like?

But besides that exception, 3-D, I am done with you.

It's such a maddening concept that 3-D just feels like one of the biggest con games in Hollywood.

What's next, "Deep Throat 3D?"

Comments

Post a Comment