3D or Not 3D?

*sigh*  I seem to find myself writing the same blog over and over.  I've already stood up for remakes and sequels, so I think my "live and let live" attitude here is going to be pretty obvious.  Anyway...

A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release.  My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions.  These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys.  Different people go to the movies for different reasons.  Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons.  Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is.  Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride. 

Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster.  He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park.  If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices.  I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX.  (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall.  But I'm not bitter... jerks.)

First off, you didn't see this coming?  Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now.  You're going to see a lot more before it's over.  Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects.  Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?

They're not making you see them.  Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater.  Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things?  Maybe... but I doubt it.  These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once. 

Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like?  Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing.  It's old.  The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything.  It has been played out.  It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate.  It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience.  Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you.  Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like.  If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful."  Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it."  It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.

I think people are confused by the word "converted".  It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again.  But movies don't work that way.  Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists.  They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.

Now  I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet.  Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best.  Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster.  Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.

More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D.  Now that was a cool experience.  It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember.  Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way.  It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.

But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions.  Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process.  And that's the point, isn't it?  Technology improves when we use it.  If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better.  But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away.  But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.

For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions.  I'm just not into it.  It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.

Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it.  But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.

The Hunger Games

I enjoyed the Hunger Games, but I didn't love it. Before seeing it, most of the complaints I'd heard about it were that it didn't follow the book. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so that wasn't an issue for me. Personally, I had three main complaints:

1. Shaky-cam. Why hasn't this died yet? It drives me crazy when people don't listen to the public. Anyone old enough to direct a movie knows by now that almost everyone hates shaky-cam. This is not new information. This is not up for debate. It's like escort missions in video games; it's hard to believe the people who make movies/games/etc are still unaware of how many people hate certain elements. Some people get annoyed by shaky-cam because they can't tell what's going on. Some people actually get nauseous. At best, some people have learned to ignore it, but it's not anyone actually looks forward to it. Never has anyone seriously said, "This would have been a better movie if they'd attached the camera to a washing machine." Shaky-cam is no longer edgy and it was never artsy. Its intention is to make you feel like you're part of the action, but all it really does is make it look like the movie was directed by a five-year-old. I can excuse shaky-cam if there's a valid reason for it, specifically "found footage" movies like Cloverfield. But in a regular movie, it's inexcusable.

2. Slow start. It takes a very long time getting to the titular contest. It's justifiable, and it's interesting to learn more about the universe, but for me it was a bit hard to sit through. It felt like the first half of the movie was exposition, and the second half was shaky-cam violence.

3. Kids killing kids. I know this is a weenie complaint, but it's hard for me to watch a movie about kids as young as 12 fighting each other to the death. Obviously there's more violent movies out there, but this movie seems to be trying to fill the Harry Potter/Narnia niche, and the subject matter seems a little grisly for that target audience. However, there's a few saving graces - first off, the tone of the movie makes it clear that the Hunger Games are a very bad thing, and the contest is much reviled by its participants. So it's not like they're actually glorifying the violence.  Also, the deaths themselves are not very graphic, thanks to the aforementioned shaky-cam.  (Of course, if this is their only reason for using shaky-cam, why is it in so many non-violent scenes as well?)

One odd thing that is bothering me is the way this movie is perceived by some of my friends. I have two friends (only one of which has actually seen the movie) who dismissed the Hunger Games as being part of the Twilight genre.

...I just... I don't even... I mean, where do I even begin? Seriously, are we talking about the same movie? Look, I don't want to be rude here, and you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't give a flying carp whether or not you liked The Hunger Games, but you can't just say "the Hunger Games is too much like Twilight" without saying something to back that statement up.

Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. The Hunger Games is about twenty-four children who are forced to fight to the death in a government-run contest. I know, it's amazing Stephanie Meyer hasn't sued for plagiarism. Sure, there is a small romantic side plot, but it probably doesn't even add up to fifteen ten minutes of the movie. Honestly, there was more romance the The Terminator. Now, I will say that Hunger Games does set up a potential love triangle that will probably get more screen time in the second movie. So I guess you could pre-judge the sequel for being Twilight-esque, assuming you're so sheltered that you think Twilight invented the the love triangle. But even then, we're not discussing the sequel here, or the book trilogy for that matter. We're discussing a single movie called The Hunger Games, and wondering in what universe it shares any similarity with Twilight.

If I had to compare The Hunger Games to another movie, I'd say it mostly reminded me of The Running Man. Dystopian "crapsack world", life-or-death contest watched by a sadistic society, you get the picture. The real difference is the tone; Running Man concentrated on the action, while Hunger Games spends more time on the world-building.

The comparison with Twilight just instantly pisses me off.  I'm trying to analyze myself to see why it's such a berserk button for me.  I think it's because the world really needs more movies like The Hunger Games.  Female-driven stories that aren't about finding the perfect man.  I've noticed this movie is being marketed towards girls (especially after seeing the toys mixed in with Barbie in the toy aisle) and yet it's nothing like your typical chick flick.  I came away from the movie thinking of it as sort of an anti-Twilight, really.  Some people said Twilight set feminism back 30 years; well, more movies like The Hunger Games could be the answer.  That said, I hope Hunger Games does attract a few Twilight fans. Twihards could use a dose of the feminism that's present in The Hunger Games. It's definitely a step in the right direction, anyway.

Anyway, complaints aside, I still enjoyed the movie, and I can't wait to read the book. I hope it makes a lot of money, and the director uses that money to buy a tripod for the sequel.  Btw, if you want to read a more thorough review of The Hunger Games (rather than just a rant against shaky-cam and Twilight comparisons), from someone who's actually read the book, please check out my cousin's blog here.