Francis Ford Coppola Hates 3-D, Too
But, regardless of Coppola's filmic flip-flopping, we wholeheartedly agree that 3-D has become a special effects monster that film studios are all too eager to use in big-budget flicks. Certain films look great in 3-D, especially ones that are more visual than story-driven. ('Wall-E' and 'Up' happened to combine the two, but the wizards at Pixar obviously have a Mephistophelian pact with the dark forces of cinema.) As some of us learned from the abominable 'Clash of the Titans' remake, 3-D doesn't always translate to cinematic gold.
The bespectacled director said, "I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses." But we think the bad essence of 3-D films is more complicated than your facial hardware. While one aspect of the movie-going experience is the immersive environment that the theater creates, the majority of films will not benefit from an artificial addition of depth-of-field. 3-D is a gimmick, and should be treated as such; just as the films of William Castle were animated by electrified theater seats and glow-in-the-dark skeletons, modern films should only employ 3-D if it is germane to the film itself. 'Avatar' was a flimsy story about imperialism, but was driven by its insane camera trickery -- and the 3-D was quite appropriate. But if we ever see Jean Seberg hawking the New York Herald Tribune in a 3-D 'Breathless,' we might just vomit -- and not from motion sickness. [From: The Huffington Post]