BTP 7: 3D Or Not 3D?

We at Beside The Point have been living in 3D for around nine years now and while it is nice to see movies finally catching up we want to know, are 3D films just another fad? Are they going too far? Or are they on the verge of becoming the industry standard? And further more, when will they finally make a film of everyone's favourite blog...Beside The Point 3D!

Unless you have been spending an unusual amount of time in the 19th century you can't help but notice that 3D films seem to be everywhere these days -well in movie theatres mostly, but one thing is certain: 3D films are getting a lot of attention. And it's not just from the slightly over-weight likes of you and me that are garnering such attention over 3D films, the film industry has seemingly found the “next big thing” in cinema. This was confirmed recently by Warner Bros' announcement that all tentpole films will be released in 3D.

According to Slashfilm.com, Warner Bros intend to release five 3D films in 2010 and nine in 2011. I can only assume that production for 2012 has been halted pending the apocalypse...

Also, Todd Phillips is currently writing the script for The Hangover 2 and has hinted that the film will probably be filmed in 3D as part of the industry's transition to 3D as standard. According to MarketSaw Phillips agrees that “soon everything will be shot in 3D” and likens it to the transition from black and white to colour. He also goes on to say that in relation to The Hangover 2 that the key lies in “restraint”. He references how James Cameron's Avatar was "not about poking you in the eye but instead it was pulling you in." It seems 3D is indeed on the march...

But is this really a good thing? At the most basic personal level these films cost us more to see, so we have to ask is it worth the extra cash? After all, it costs a fair penny to pay for the ticket, popcorn and soda and at most you get three hours of entertainment. So why do we do it in the first place? Entertainment obviously, so on the face of 3D can only be a good thing -if it enhances the movie experience. Now that's a big if.

Let's go back to the beginning. According to the bible that is Wikipedia, 3D films have existed in some form since 1890. So they're not what you'd call a new idea. In fact my first (and favourite) 3D experience was the Terminator 2-3D, Battle Across Time that I saw in Universal Studios, Florida. Now, this was opened in 1996, that's 14 years ago, yet we're only now seeing a real push of 3D films. Why is this? Is it a technology thing or is it simply a cash thing?

Think about it, when you take a filming style that has existed for a long time but costs a little more to produce why not implement it and charge a little more, or simply rely on wow-factor to boost sales? Probably because many films simply don't need to be shot in 3D. Look at Burton's Alice In Wonderland, it made a killing when it premièred in 3D ( $116.1 million on it's opening weekend) but I have yet to speak to anyone who feels the film gained much for being in 3D. And as for The Hangover -what could they possibly do? Projectile vomit anyone?

I don't buy the argument that 3D was not pushed early because of technological restraints, nor do I accept any artistic reason for every major film to be released in 3D. This isn't like the introduction of talkies or colour where the benefits are obvious, this is about paying extra for a little depth perception and some ridiculous glasses. And to be honest, the experience leaves me feeling a little flat.

I know that Hollywood as taken a kicking of late, piracy and the recession have taken their toll, but is pushing a fad like 3D really going to make such a difference? Don't get me wrong, sometimes 3D can and does enhance films, but the danger is that once people get fed up with paying to see films in 3D that didn't need the three dimensional treatment that they simply opt to go to the movies and watch standard viewings leaving 3D dead in the water. Which could prove to be a costly mistake for Hollywood. Perhaps the key to success here really is restraint.

-Drew-
Drew discovered the third dimension in 1914. It was in a basket beside some books.

Thoughts on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Nothing bothers me more than reading a movie review that sits on the fence. You know, when they mention all these positive things and then the same amount of negative things too, so after you're done reading it you're just as unsure of the opinion as when you began. Drives me crazy! That being said, I'm about to do the same thing to you.


Let me start by saying, I liked the movie. I did, it was good, but it wasn't all it was hyped up to be. Sure it was Tim Burton, and yeah, it was Johnny Depp, and yes, it was in 3-D... but I didn't fall in love with it all over again like I was expecting to. I loved the books and I very much enjoyed the Disney animated film; but I think there was too much pressure riding on this new one. Anyone who has seen the original Disney animated film and expects Burton's to be just a pretty little remake is going to be gravely disappointed. Anyone who has read the books and expects it to ride closer to The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland shall be surprised when it steals a bit from that and Through the Looking Glass. So either way, hardcore Alice fans of both directions will have problems accepting this movie with all the surrounding hype.

Alright, past all the hubbub of the fans we can get down to the meat of the movie... you know: plot, character, cinematic portrayal, ect.

The 3-D was lovely, but unfortunately the film lost a great deal of color (or colour... whichever you prefer). That took away from the luster of the fantastical adventure. Don't get me wrong, the 3-D technology was well used and very entertaining, but I watched it a second time in a regular theater and saw so many wondrous details that I missed the first time I watched it through the glasses. Burton is notorious for being dark, and while the 3-D version of the film was rather dim, it didn't have his signature morbidity sewn throughout it. It was twisted and strange, but that's also how Carroll wrote the books to begin with. There are some dark elements here and there throughout the movie, but it wasn't over done, which pleasantly surprised me.

The characters were all so wonderful! Helena Bonham Carter did a phenomenal job (as always) playing the Red Queen and Mia Wasikowska made an absolutely lovely Alice. Now, my personal favorite was the March Hare. He is gloriously mad and Paul Whitehouse did a magnificent job voicing him. I know what you are all thinking, "What about Johnny Depp?" well keep you're pants on, I'm getting there. As a child, watching the animated Alice in Wonderland, I had no clue what a "hatter" was. I assumed they called him the Mad Hatter because he was crazy and wore a big hat. Silly I know, but that is why I appreciated the glimpse we get of Depp being the Mad Hatter and actually "hatting." Oh, and he did a pretty good job acting (luckily he didn't out-shine everyone else like is his typical style).


As for the plot of this tale, it won't give too much away for me to say it was predictable yet lovable. I did enjoy the film, wouldn't nominate it for anything, but the morals and meanings are wonderful. The story is enriched with little treasures that you have to pay attention to see. I don't know if I'd recommend this movie to everyone, but at least to anyone who just wants an escape from the real world, even if just for an hour or two.