Opening the door…

…and stepping out of the closet. I will admit this day:

I don’t particularly care for 3-D movies. I want to like them; aren’t we supposed to like them? I mean, it’s not that Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon weren’t enjoyable. They were. Or at least I think they were. Anyway, my negative attitude about them basically remained hidden until I ran across an article in Newsweek by Roger Ebert. At last — validation.

It’s not that I needed somebody “in the business” to tell me I wasn’t crazy for not going absolutely ape over 3-D. Rather, I think I needed someone to offer some legitimate reasons why it might be so. Rog came through. He summed up a fine article thusly:

I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Totally unrelated: I found this on a Mo Williams fan page on Facebook this morning…

STFP?  HAaaaa. My cuss ins Glenn, Susie, Randy and Kathie would think that was funny.

All right. That was your cheap laugh for the morning. Sip your coffee and move along.

Happy Saturnday!

FO

9 thoughts on “Opening the door…

  1. Mavis

    HAA! I thought I was the only one that didn’t care that much for 3-D! It’s ok for kids movies (in my opine) but I don’t want to see the majority of movies go that way. I couldn’t even imagine watching movies like Scarface in 3-D. Just saying.

    I don’t even know what STFP means. Not sure I want to know. You’re right…I just need to sip my coffee and move along. This cuss in b out!

    Reply
    1. Rat Fink Post author

      What I really thought made sense in that article was the bit about perspective…how everything in the background is just as clear as objects in the foreground. That’s not natural. And you’re right — everything in 3-D would be a disaster!

      I’ll tell you about the other thing in person…LOL

      Reply
  2. Mathew

    Yesterday, movie guru Roger Ebert posted this on his Twitter account:

    “3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.”

    I personally couldn’t agree more.

    Reply
    1. Rat Fink Post author

      Absolutely — and Ebert wrote the Newsweek article I referenced above, too. It’s fun for some things, and a cool once-in-awhile diversion. But for Disney to go “all 3-D” ?? Insane.

      I know several people who instantly get sick watching it.

      Reply
  3. Stein

    Ok, so Roger can shove it. I don’t particular enjoy 3-D movies, nor do I dislike them. I don’t even mind people criticizing that aspect of it all. “It’s all about the marketing.” REALLY?!?! Gee, I didn’t know Hollywood wanted money. I thought they just wanted to live in a place that burns to the ground every so often.

    Now seriously, I don’t really care what Disney does, as their movies are MOSTLY for children as it is. (Or at least their aim as an industry is for children.) I think that it’s somewhat admirable to take the industry known to please children and make it even more child-friendly. You can’t claim to be a child’s dreams and fantasies come true while simultaneously releasing films involving live-action murder.

    Roger Ebert, you are doing what you do because of the marketing as well. That is my dark rain cloud comment of the day.

    Reply
    1. Rat Fink Post author

      Hey, Stormy…Ebert was referring to Touchstone Pictures, Disney’s “real movie” arm, which produced tiny little grown-up films like Good Morning Vietnam, Dead Poets Society and The Royal Tenenbaums. My little rain cloud, you are especially dark today. ‘Fore we know it, you’ll be channeling Henny Youngman and Rodney Dangerfield.

      :P

      Reply
  4. Tom Hanks

    3D is an eventuality. Roger Ebert becoming a cranky old man because he can’t talk anymore won’t stop it. (not that i think losing the ability to speak isn’t a valid excuse for becoming more pessimistic about the world)

    Anyway….silent to sound, black and white to color, 2d to 3D, its a natural progression. The whole point of movies is to relate some experience or feeling from this world or an imagined one onto a screen so that other people can feel it and experience it. We live in and experience the world in three dimensions. Why should our art not be shown in the same format? We have two eyes capable of perceiving depth. The only reason movies have not been 3d since the beginning of the art form is because we lacked the technology to do so.

    I agree that there are currently flaws in the way 3d is being shown and that people are taking advantage of the hype surrounding it by quickly releasing lower quality 3d movies but should end over time. Technicolor wasn’t realistic either.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Rat Fink Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.