3D Returns, Few Care

Idly waiting for friends at the local multiplex the other day, I wandered around the foyer gazing at the coming attractions. It struck me that a surprising amount of them are beginning to utilise what many had suspected was a mere fad: 3-D technology. Seems that the concert film is the genre that has decided to bring back the supposedly obsolete gimmick. U2 3D is probably the concert film that has been most applauded for three dimensional action. Unfortunately, I can't comment on how effective it truly is, because I would rather sit through an hour and a half of a man hitting me on the ear with a hammer than be subjected to more than two minutes of Bono's gyrating and The Edges infuriating overuse of the whammy pedal (note to international readers: no, all the Irish don't love U2. This is an untrue, hurtful stereotype - much like the drunken poet or leprechauns).

However, I was more amused by the promotion of another 3-D concert film: Hannah Montana or whatever her name is. Admittedly, the tagline was more entertaining than the prospect of two hours worth of bubblegum pop: the bold claim that the film is - and I shit you not - "The Most Anticipated Movie Event of All Time!" is arguably the single most excessive use of hyperbole in the history of marketing. Yet the boast of an extra dimension received as much billing as the borderline psychotic self-promotion.

Once was a time (like, 2002) when 3-D was relegated to best forgotten experimentations (Jaws 3D, for example - which I can only imagine features yet another shark and yet another Brody family member) and theme park rides. Now, recent releases such as Monster House, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Superman Returns, Spy Kids 3-D and a re-release of The Nightmare Before Christmas have resurrected the lumbering zombie. Directors are beginning to latch onto it again. Is this a good or a bad thing?

The only 3D film I have taken the time to watch in recent years is the recent Beowulf. The film was, for the most part, utter crap - basically a rotoscoped Ray Winstone shouting his own character's name at bizarre and ill-judged intervals for the best part of one hundred & twenty minutes. Without 3D, I would have walked out. Yet there was something oddly satisfying about the geeky glasses. The digital projection that has made 3D somewhat of a more affordable technology looked astonishing: extremely high-def. The technology showed promise. However, in the hands of Robert Zemeckis, the third dimension felt underused. The occasional arrow flying at you at a strange angle was about all you get.

Yet the technology is finally there, and in the right hands, perhaps 3-D could be used effectively. However, alot of current attempts seem to be simply rehashes of old classics. George Lucas has threatened a further re-release of Star Wars utilising 3-D, while the already timeless Toy Story films are also due a revisitation prior to the release of the second sequel (which itself will surpass the standard second dimension).

While the technology is interesting, I fail to see any of the upcoming efforts really making the three dimensional experience worthwhile. I really dunno if it will stick this time either, and come a few years it will be interesting to see if anybody is still making 3-D films, and more importantly, how the audience has reacted. If it were my call, though, I would let the technology rest until someone really takes advantage of the opportunity. In the meantime, studios could spend their money trying to re-introduce some of the other classic and badly judged fads. The campaign to resurrect William Castle from the dead starts here, people!