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?
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.