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

  1. I'd see Deep Throat in 3D but that is just me.

    welcome to the team Jeremy!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment