In fact, all three of the year's major 3D animated films — Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Up — have been hits with moviegoers, which might suggest audiences are warming up to the technology. (Except, of course, steadfast skeptic Roger Ebert.) So why do I remain so 3D-resistant? Up is a great movie and possibly one of Pixar's best, but its greatness had nothing to do with it being in 3D. Sure, the balloons popped off the screen, and every time a bird flew it felt like it was going to hit me smack in the head. But I actually found the 3D technology distracting at times and completely inconsequential at others. Each of these animated flicks are visually stunning enough that adding 3D technology starts to seem like overkill. (Not to mention pricier.)
But with nearly every animated film in the works destined for 3D screens (including July's Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) and James Cameron's sure-to-be-epic sci-fi adventure Avatar on the way, the technology is obviously here to stay. So I'm curious, PopWatchers: Where do you stand on 3D at the moment? Did it enhance your Coraline/Monsters Vs. Aliens/Up moviegoing experience? Or are you waiting for Avatar to commit one way or the other?
Comments (1-30) of 40 Add your comment
I understand Ebert’s viewpoint, but I don’t miss the brightness of the image when I’m watching a 3D film, and I enjoy the 3D aspect of it. I don’t think it should be a gimmick, like that horror movie from last winter, but I do think it can add depth to a film and make it a little more fun.
BTW, I would say 3D was pretty inconsequential in Monsters vs. Aliens and Up, but I thought it really enhance Coraline. Because it was stop-motion animation and was a kind of creepy movie, the 3D aspect made it edgier.
Actually, the only 3D movies I’ve seen are science movies at the Omnitheater. Unless you count when I was a kid, a local TV station played “Gorilla at Large!” in 3D and we all had to buy 3D glasses at Tom Thumb. It was quite a disappointment, and probably why I haven’t made any 3D efforts since.
3-D is okay but it actually bothers my eyes after a while and my kids get tired of the glasses also. If it’s not high quality 3-D (i.e. Journey to the Center of the Earth) then you really feel ripped off. We saw UP without 3-D and didn’t feel like we missed anything at all.
I find 3D to be pretty overrated myself. Yeah it’s kinda cool to do now and then (and can make some movies like Beowolf seem better than they really are), but it’s not nearly as spectacular as Katzenberg makes it out to be.
Plus I just have a hard time getting as immersed in a movie while wearing big, clunky 3D glasses. lol
NO, we do not need all animated movies in 3D, or at least we need 2D alternatives (like they did for UP). My kids are too young to keep the glasses on, and it ruins the experience to try and make them do it. Plus, it’s already expensive enough to take 4 people to the movies without adding on an additional $3 per person charge for glasses rental. We saw UP in 2D and loved every minute of it. The power of that movie definitely wasn’t in the special effects of 3D.
I found the 3D in “Up” to be such an enhancement to my experience. The part I love isn’t the things popping out of the screen, but the depth added to the scenery. I can’t say I would’ve even enjoyed MvA without the 3D. As for Coraline, I’m on the fence. Overall, I’m ‘all for’ the technology!
Of course Katzenberg likes 3D: it’s a de facto $3/ticket price hike.
Hmmm. I will always be of the belief that good movie-making directs people to movies, rather than gimmicky things. There are other factors–Monsters vs. Aliens had the benefit, for example, of being one of the first ‘cartoon’ family films suitable for all ages and held that place until “Up” was released three months later. But overall people will go to movies because they have an appealing story, and will return because they liked that story, rather than because they’re using gimmicks. I am sure 3-D enhances some elements, but I don’t think you can hinge the future of animated features on it.
Gimmicky-(definition) gimmicky things.
People thought COLOR and SOUND were “GIMMICKY” too. And a great scientist once said that a movie longer than 20 minutes would be worthless.
no thanks. 1. why would i want to spend another 2-3 bucks just for the glasses? 3D films already look amazing without the gimmick. 2. i watched coraline in 3D (i had no choice) and it gave me a headache. the movie was great though 3. not very comfortable when you have to wear the 3D glasses over your own pair.
i say eliminate watching 3D movies in 3D and have a good balance of 2D and 3D films.
I think this is a really bad idea. A lot of people have visual impairments that prevent them from being able to enjoy, or even properly view, 3D images, and mandating that all Dreamworks movies be presented in 3D will probably shut out a lot of potential viewers. Plus, movies should be concentrating on excellent character and plot development. Not visual gimmicks.
I watched Coraline and Up in 3D and both films were great and would still be great in 2D. Watching in 3D can be distracting esp if you’ve suspended reality and are jerked back by something hurling at you from the screen. My neice and nephew love watching movies in 3D but I can do without it, as well as the higher cost.
I did not see Up in 3D but honestly I feel like it wouldn’t have added anything. A great animated movie isn’t about if it is 3D or not. It is about the story and the animation. I think going completely 3D is a really bad idea.
If you havn’t seen 3D, you have no reason to speak. You have now argument, you know nothing.
This is old news! I read about Katzenberg going all 3D with Dreamworks in Time or something before the opening of Monsters vs. Aliens in an article with him, Spielberg (who’s working on the 3D Tin Tin), and James Cameron (who’s working on the 3D Avatar). I don’t think EW’s ever been this far behind the times.
I’m pretty ‘eh’ abotu 3D. I saw Up in 3D and I don’t really feel like there was anything I would’ve missed seeing it in 2D. Coraline was about the only film I really felt the 3D helped because they put it to good use in differentiating the Other Mother’s world from Coraline’s. I think my issue with 3D is that it makes already over-hyped movies even more irritating. This also makes me think of the way all animated movies suddenly had be CGI after Pixar’s movies became popular, because studios looked at Pixar’s success and thought “Aha! So CGI makes movies profitable!” rather than realizing that it was the writing not the medium that made Pixar movies great. This is more of the same — execs thinking that some gimmick will make a movie a hit beyond good writing/ directing/acting.
I for one believe the 3D appeal will fade out, and moviegoers will return to the cheaper 2D alternatives.
I find 3D movies distracting and almost always unnecessary; it’s just an excuse to charge $10 more for a ticket
Personally, I think they’ll keep making 3-D movies in both forms, 3-D and 2-D, but I really do think that 3-D does enhance the picture giving it more life. I saw Monsters vs. Aliens in both 3-D and then again in 2-D and I didn’t care for it as much in 2-D. The thing is they need to not make it gimmicky (like the paddle ball at the beginning of MvA), and they should keep offering it both ways for viewers that would have problems watching a movie in 3-D.
You can’t say that every single dollar in a film’s gross was from a 3D showing. Most theaters offer a 2D and a 3D showing of Monsters Vs. Aliens, Coraline, and Up.
When I saw Coraline twice and Up twice, they were always in 2D. So don’t credit their success to 3D.
And, they are all animated movies. Just because they were in 3D doesn’t mean a thing. Animated movies almost always do well.
I think once more live-action movies are made in 3D the fad will fade out. Sometimes 3D can be cute when the film is animated but it will feel very corny when it is a live action movie.
You can’t say that every single dollar in a film’s gross was from a 3D showing. Most theaters offer a 2D and a 3D showing of Monsters Vs. Aliens, Coraline, and Up.
When I saw Coraline twice and Up twice, they were always in 2D. So don’t credit their success to 3D.
And, they are all animated movies. Just because they were in 3D doesn’t mean a thing. Animated movies almost always do well.
I think once more live-action movies are made in 3D the fad will fade out. Sometimes 3D can be cute when the film is animated but it will feel very corny when it is a live action movie.
And I never even touched the price for 3D. It is just another way to charge the general public more and more money. Why would you want to pay more for your ticket when 2D movie tickets are already up to ten dollars!
Speaking as someone with a slight vision disability that can’t see 3D movies, I hope they’ll always make a 2D experience.
3D isn’t terrible, but I must say, we watched UP in 3D and wished we had seen it in 2D. The colors were not as vivid as on a normal screen and the 3D got distracting alot. Kind of gives me a minor eye ache too.
What I want to know is WHY is 3D so cool NOW? It had it’s “golden age” in the 1950s, it’s been at Disney (hello, Honey I shrunk the kids and the Muppets) since forever, why is it SO COOL NOW?? Not only do I not particularly enjoy having things shoot out at me while I’m watching a movie, but it does NOTHING for the movie. It doesn’t add to the plot, it doesn’t make it better or more visually stunning, it doesn’t do anything.
Now, more movies should be made in IMAX, not 3D. 3D is NOTHING new and really not that exciting. So I don’t know why Dreamworks wants all 3D and I don’t know why Peter JAckson wants all 3D too. Those movies this year would have done just as well WITHOUT being in 3D!!!
It is a completely new 3D, it’s not at all what you desribe.
I saw “Monsters Vs. Aliens” and “Up” in both 3-D and 2-D, and the only thing I got out of the 3-D version that I didn’t get out of the 2-D version was a line on my nose where the glasses hit it. I’m with Roger Ebert – 3-D is totally overrated. And he’s right that the beautiful color is muted in 3-D, too. It’s a shame.
http://www.fwdailynews.com/jenny
I would have loved Up and Coraline just as much without the 3D. Those were just all-around great movies.
However, I can understand Katzenberg’s thinking – 3D is all something like Monsters Vs. Aliens has going for it. My guess is the same goes for future Dreamworks movies.
Maybe if Dreamworks Animation actually tried to make good movies again instead of pop-culture spewing junk they wouldn’t have to rely on gimmicks.
first, I think you should be allowed to re-cycle your 3-D glasses – why must we have to pay for yet another pair for each new movie. 2nd – for all movies being in 3-D, I think it depends on the movie — some work/some don’t — Bolt (I know, not Dreamworks)was GREAT in 3-D – AvP was pretty good but as great as UP was, I personally didn’t think the 3D added anything to the movie. I advised friends not to pay the extra $ for the 3-D showings.
I think 3-D technology lends itself to the concept of Avatar, but I actively avoid 3-D for animated films if I can. To me it’s a pointless excuse to jack up ticket prices. And I agree, it can be more distracting than enhancing, so I very much resist the idea of making ALL movies 3-D.
The current digital-projection 3-D using Real D/Disney 3-D is pretty good, a huge improvement from the blue/red glasses stuff of the past, though I think IMAX 3-D is still the gold standard. Although I actually prefer “in your face” 3-D effects with things regularly popping out of the screen at the audience, I admit that those films are gimmicky and hard to get seriously involved with. On the other hand, when 3-D is used more in a more subtle manner, to create depth of background (as in UP), it’s easier to “get lost” in the story and characters, but it also seems a bit unnecessary, as others have pointed out… do you really want to spend more for a new set of glasses each time for a film that could be enjoyed pretty well in 2D? The studios are pushing 3D because of this extra revenue, but the novelty may eventually wear off as people tire of having to keep buying the glasses. The coolest part is actually the sharp digital projection… THIS is what really needs to become the norm!
You’re right, the new 3D is a HUGE improvement from anything before it. And IMAX actually uses the same 3D Tech.(The difference you see comes from the quality of the IMAX film, and the GIGANTIC screens.) And it’s expensive because it’s NEW and is harder to make, you’re not paying 3 bucks for glasses, you’re paying for the experience.
Studios are really pushing 3D because it is one more way to better “immerse” the viewer in the experience.
No, don’t like 3D, doesn’t add anything, plus, many of the films, especially Coraline, look really dark. Theatres also charge more for the 3D films – boo! Give me a good story and fun characters and keep the glasses in the box.