Would you like to see Men in Black in 3-D? Or maybe Ghostbusters, Spider-Man, or Casino Royale? While we’re at it, how about Taxi Driver or Gandhi? All of the movies above belong to Sony Pictures, which means that you may soon be watching them at home in glorious, eye-popping, headache-inducing, Travis-Bickle-with-his-Mohawk-in- your-face 3-D. According to a report by Bloomberg, Sony is planning to offer Blu-ray discs featuring newly enhanced 3-D versions of some of its vast archive of movies and videos as early as April 1, 2011. Just think of what that will mean! No more tedious, yawn-inducing flat images of goofy ghosts and secret agents and Spidey. If this works, the whole damn catalogue could eventually be brought up to full 21st-century visual speed.
Actually, let’s be honest: This sounds like a not-very-good idea, and potentially a mildly blasphemous one — even if no one is really talking about doing it to Taxi Driver. Personally, I don’t have much of a stake in what happens to Men in Black, which on some kiddiefied Jack-in-the-box level really did want to be a 3-D movie. But Martin Campbell did not direct the classically framed and exciting Casino Royale as some trivial zap-fest for the eyes. I wonder what he, or other directors, will think if their handiwork is suddenly converted into 3-D fodder for the new, imagistically advanced it’s-all-just-popcorn-anyway home-theater experience.
The whole experiment reminds me of an earlier adventure in taking the movie past and awkwardly retrofitting it for the brave technological future. Remember colorization? That was the fad that swept the home-video market for a mercifully brief moment back in the 1980s, when studios decided that the only way they were ever going to get “the kids” to watch boring old black-and-white movies was to turn them into…ugly, fake, Technicolor-throwup versions of boring old black-and-white movies. It didn’t work, of course. Up at the top of this column, that’s a still from the colorized version of Casablanca. Check out Humphrey Bogart’s Crayola-blue suit! Not to mention his Desert Adobe flesh tones! The paradox is that Casablanca looks more blah and fuddy-duddy in muted-crayon color than it ever did in sleekly noirish black and white. I suspect that doing the added-dimension equivalent to a movie like Spider-Man will not prove any less of a gilded-lily mistake.
Then again, the point of Sony’s experiment, assuming that it does come to pass, isn’t to sell movies; it’s to use the movies to sell the technology. That’s what the Michael Jackson tribute on the Grammys was really all about: The musical performance itself was stunning (I honestly never realized that “Earth Song” was quite so…celestial), but I suspect that out of every 15,000 people watching, 14,999 of them were staring at those blurry double images wondering, a bit aghast, if they were suddenly behind the curve on home-theater technology. I bet there were a lot of calls to Best Buy the next day.
Colorization never sold much of anything beyond the infinite zeal of contemporary movie executives to cannibalize the past as a way of marketing it. Will 3-D versions of pictures that never needed 3-D in the first place accomplish more? Or, in the wake of Avatar’s acid-trip screen-saver visuals, will they only make the technology look and feel that much more like a ramshackle carnival contraption?
What do you think? Is 3-D home viewing the inevitable wave of the future? And, if so, do you have a true interest in seeing enhanced 3-D versions of classic movies? If so, which ones?
Comments (1-15) of 41 Add your comment
enough with the 3D movies and rereleases! now that Avatar became the #1 grossing movie, everyone thinks if it’s 3D, it’s gonna sell. The honest truth is it’s the content and visual effects that were created specifically for Avatar that made it successful. NONE of the previously released 3D movies ever made a splash, and the next wave won’t either until the stories AND visual effects are amazing. will they make more money since 3D charges more? of course! but they’re shooting themselves in the foot because once people realize it’s NOT the same stunning effects, they’re gonna think it’s a waste of money and give the movie a bad word of mouth.
Didn’t feel it right away, but an hour or so after the movie–BAM–right in the frontal lobe; piercing shards of crisp white light with a dull, back of the sinus brain freeze throb. But at least I was able to see the Nav’i in all their majesty.
I think that 3D movies will eventually have a place in home theater systems. I don’t necessarily believe that it will be the end of traditional 2D films or of for that matter classic films. The whole argument against colorization and turning older films into 3D spectacles seems to me a bit odd since the question isn’t about the studios making those new 3D or colorized versions of it’s older films the definitive version of the movie, rather it’s just an attempt by a studio to give an older movie new life, with a new audience. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn’t mean that I personally want to watch Casablanca colorized (or even in 3D), but I have no real right to tell somebody they are wrong for wanting to. The real question isn’t is 3D going to destroy the purity of the film or a particular film, like say Casablanca (as so many fans and critics seem to assume it will), but rather will 3D be able to entice a new audience to an older product. I say it’s a good thing that the studios do consider whenever new technologies come along ways to update their older catalogs. Try to think of it this way, there are hundreds of people out there who have not yet seen such classics as Taxi Driver, Casablanca, or Citizen Kane simply because their is no theatrical hook relevant to their own theatrical time period to. You put these movies in 3D or colorize them, what have you, and you give people an excuse to come back to the classics. That in the end is never a bad thing. It’s kind of like the people who endlessly whine about the Twilight series, it’s stupid because the real issue is are the books getting teenagers interested in reading? And not just reading reading new books but older books like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights. If Sony, or any other movie studio, wants to release 3D versions of older films let them, it’ll be a good thing if they can bring new audiences to older classics. The only thing I ask of them is that they don’t neglect to let me have the choice in whether or not I want to see Spider-Man or Taxi Driver in the way it was originally filmed 2D.
“he question isn’t about the studios making those new 3D or colorized versions of it’s older films the definitive version of the movie,
Actually, in the case of colorization, it was, until a lot of people complained about it. Turner had no problem with making the colorized versions the definitive ones.
In general, I get headaches if I watch 3D movies, so if I must watch one, I will be very selective on the title. Also, there is a trade-off that you sacrifice picture quality in order to watch the 3D effect.
A re-release in the theatre would provide a great experience. However, the market and technology for enhanced home 3D is still in its early stages.
Given the title suggestions in the article, “Men in Black” would be interesting in 3D, but I don’t know if I would buy a new disc just for the 3D feature. As for Ghostbusters, I think the StayPuft Marshmallow Man would look cool.
I refuse to see any more movies in 3D. It is a gimmick that should stay at Disney World where it belongs. How can anyone in their right mind think making a classic movie, done in the director’s proper vision, deserves updating? You want to make a new movie in 3D? Go ahead, but leave the classics out of it. And if you want to keep getting my money, make a 2d option still available.
Can you imagine though, Mean Streets in 3-D…yeah, that’s right–AWESOME, HUH?!? Ghost Road House???
This is a bad idea and people will obviously not buy into, at least not for long. Let’s temper this fear that Avatar has ended civilization as we know it….
LOL
Seriously?
I have always said big effects, rapid editing, and lots of camera movement is meant to hide a bad script/story and/or bad acting. This 3D stuff is the next step in distraction. Watch a great movie from the 40’s-60’s and you’ll be shocked how static the camera is, putting the attention on the actors to perform for you.
I personally do NOT want to watch certain classic films, for example Rebel Without a Cause or The Godfather, in 3-D as it would be an annoying distraction rather than a pleasant enhancement. I can think of three films, the first two Toy Story installments and The Nightmare Before Christmas, that were less than spectacular in 3-D since they weren’t designed for the format to begin with. If any of them had been re-released in boring, ordinary 2-D that would have been okay with me. And, unfortunately, I can remember watching Casablanca in color and the experience can be effectively summed up in one word: UGH!! Enough said.
Advancing technology is interesting on it’s own, but 3D is unnecessary. As a corrective lens wearer, it’s actually nearly non-functional for me as well. I would be willing to watch “Avatar” if I could find a screening that WASN’T in 3D-the headache I got about 20 mins into “Up” was almost more than I could take.
If the colorization of such classic films didn’t work (and for good reason), 3D is not going to work either. I don’t mind watching a movie in 3D, like an action or animated movie, but that doesn’t mean every genre and every movie for that matter needs to make the switch.
I completely agree. Classic black and white movies such as Casablanca look really good in the original black and white. Why fix what isn’t broken? It was a technique back then, and high quality movies in black and white look very good. The same goes with 3-D. Only certain movies would look good (Star Trek, maybe?) but otherwise, what would be the point? Watching classics like Citizen Kane or Mr. Smith Goes To Washington in 3-D would be completely pointless. “Ooooh, a ceiling! In 3-D!” “Ooooh, a filibuster! In 3-D!” There’s no benefit.
Colorization didn’t work??? Really? So why is it that they sell so well and make such profits?
Name one movie that still sells in its colorized format. Casablanca, Maltese Falcon – these are all now available only in the original, glorious B&W. Colorization was a flop.
Men in Black definately. Either way, I’m not buying until they make 3d without the glasses.
I think this is going to be a mistake. They assume that people will watch just any old movie in 3D and that it will make money. I don’t think that’s true. Avatar made as much as it did from a combination of technical competence (it was MADE for 3D, not retrofitted), overall visuals, to a lesser extent the story and sheer dumb luck. Don’t think that you can get lightning in a bottle again just by messing around with older movies.
And too, not every person CAN WATCH movies in 3D. Certain people (based on responses posted on EW’s article asking people if they liked 3D, a LOT of people) with headaches, epilepsy, vision problems, nausea or even motion sickness may not be able to see 3D movies. Should they be left behind?
No, No NO NOOOOO!
Stupid.