I've said it before and I'll say it again: 3D films are a scam. A gimmick. A rip-off. And it's time to stand up and say, "No more."
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 3D is a scam. A gimmick. A rip-off. And it's time to stand up and say, "No more."

Because 3D, apparently, is becoming the studios' go-to feature when it comes to ginning up box-office receipts. But it's not clear whether audiences are falling for it.

Sometimes they don't have a choice. When your child wants to see the latest kid-oriented feature and the only theater in your neighborhood has it in 3D, what's your alternative?

The whole comic-book-movie craze has yet to peak - and 3D seems to have given it a boost, despite such stinkers as The Green Hornet and Tron: Legacy. Movie executives are hopping on the bandwagon, because that extra dimension means they can jack up ticket prices by as much as $5 - even though that extra dimension makes the movie darker and slower, without adding anything to its ability to engage you.

So many of these 3D efforts have flopped - most recently, count Green Hornet and Sanctum as bombs - and yet the tide seems to be rolling in that direction. Latest example: this weekend's Drive Angry, yet another Nicolas Cage extrusion.

Indeed, despite all the films that Martin Scorsese supposedly has stacked up like planes over Newark - a Dean Martin film, a film set in Japan, one about the guy who killed Jimmy Hoffa - Scorsese's next film, Hugo Cabret, is in 3D.

And the big news out of Australia is that style-over-substance master Baz Luhrmann is remaking The Great Gatsby - in 3D. Oh joy. Never mind that Luhrmann's last movie, Australia, was a cow flop that nearly closed before its first screening was complete.

I can sort of understand Scorsese - the ultimate cineaste as filmmaker - wanting to venture into a new cinematic realm and doing it with what is, essentially, a children's movie. So you've got the greatest director of his era - yes, I said it and I meant it - dabbling in two arenas he's never stepped into before: a movie for kids and a film in three dimensions. But is that dimension necessary? Of course not.

As for Luhrmann and Gatsby, well, where to start? I'll reserve judgment on the film itself until I see it (though I lump Luhrmann in with Ridley and Tony Scott - directors whose embrace of style over substance has somehow won them an undeserved respectability).

But just the idea of The Great Gatsby in 3D?

Click here: This commentary continues on my website.http://hollywoodandfine.com/fineblog/?p=817

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot