“D” is for “3-D”
Remember “Bwana Devil”?
Well, I don’t blame you if you don’t; it was a movie that came out over half a century ago, and not a very good movie at that.
Reason I remember it is that I knew one of its producers. And he had been convinced, back in 1952, as evidently were many others, that the three dimensions it was shot in represented the Future.
Because it was in 3D, “Bwana Devil” was called “The Miracle of the Age!!! A LION in your lap! A LOVER in your arms!” Hopefully they never got those two mixed up.
Well, it wasn’t a miracle and it wasn’t the future. 3D sort of faded away in the years that followed. When I saw the film, years later, it was clear that it was a mediocre movie and the 3D hadn’t helped much.
Now – (drum roll) – 3D is back!!!
I take the liberty of predicting that the new, 21st-century 3D fad will go the way of the 1952 version.
L A Times: "Christopher Nolan's dim view of a Hollywood craze: 'I'm not a huge fan of 3-D'"
Roger Ebert: “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too). 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness.”
From what I’ve seen of modern 3D films, I would have to agree. What about you? Agree? Disagree?
1 year ago