Originally Posted By ctdsnark This past weekend,the critics on Roger Ebert's movie review program decided to take a look at 3-D movies,particularly the trend following the huge success of "Avatar". While watching the show,the short-lived 3-D trend of the early 80's immediatly came to mind,beginning with the unexpected success of 1981's "Comin' At Ya!".While I never saw that one,I did see many of those that followed;"Spacehunter:Adventures In The Forbidden Zone","The Perils Of Gwendoline In The Isle Of Yik-Yak","The Man Who Wasn't There"{which ISN'T an earlier version of the Billy-Bob Thornton movie of the same name}and so on and so forth.Quite simply put,they all stank.The 3-D didn't work,and they were all bad movies to begin with.Just about the only one I sort-of liked from that period was the 3-D climax of "Freddy's Dead:The {so-called} Final Nightmare".That wasn't great 3-D either,but at least it showed SOME spark of imagination. About the same time,quality 3-D finally appeared with "Magic Journeys",the film that was part of the opening of Epcot---now such films have become standard in theme parks,first accompanied by live-action effects synchronized to the action onscreen,then incorporated into rides.It took a few years,but Hollywood finally got 3-D of that caliber into the multiplex theaters.After a few years of little more than CGI-animated features,"Avatar",made by James Cameron,one of the movie industry's creative heavy hitters,started the flood of live-action 3-D that is currently in our theaters. For me,it's still about the movie itself,what it's about,and who made it;I saw "Alice In Wonderland" in 3-D because it's a Tim Burton movie.In fact,if indeed the 3-D in that movie was an afterthought as I've heard,I honestly didn't see it.I particularly enjoyed the forest scenes in that movie. I saw "Up",as well as "Toy Story 3" and Cars 2" in 3-D because they're from Pixar---in my opinion,the only CGI studio doing anything worthwhile with the medium.Of course,there's also Robert Zemeckis---while I loved seeing "Beowulf" and "A Christmas Carol" in 3-D,{no 3-D in our city when "The Polar Express" played}I had serious,serious doubts about "Mars Needs Moms"---so I didn't see it at all. Admittedly,my instincts about what movies I believe I'll like,and whether or not it's worth the extra cost to see them in 3-D,sometimes fail me.The trailer for "Drive Angry" made it look like something akin to "Grindhouse",one of my personal favorites---the fact that it starred Nicholas Cage,whom once thrilled me with "The Rock" and "Con Air" should've tipped me off.A more recent example,I ignored all the negative reviews "Green Lantern" was getting,solely because I was---in fact,I still AM---desperate to see something I haven't seen in I-don't-know-HOW-long:a GOOD DC superhero movie that ISN'T about Batman.Of course,there's other factors as well;while I do plan to see the Harry Potter finale this weekend,it just won't be in 3-D,for the very simple reason that none of the previous films,all of which I saw,were filmed that way,so why bother seeing the last one in 3-D?"Captain America",however,due next week?In all likelihood,yes. On the above-mentioned Roger Ebert show,the question came up as to whether or not 3-D could become the standard for all films,for which the two critics immediately dismissed the idea as highly unlikely---to which I heartily agree,for the very obvious reason that not all movies have the sort of visual flare that would utilize 3-D to its best potential.Believe it or not,Hollywood actually considered that question at the height of the short-lived 3-D trend of the mid-fifties,during which a surprisingly wide array of genres were filmed in 3-D.The fact that most of these films haven't achieved the kind of longevity enjoyed by the original "House Of Wax",or even "Dial M For Murder",prove that then,as now,no matter how good it gets,3-D isn't for every movie.
