We thought we had seen the last of masked killer Michael Myers.
Not quite.
The just-released “Halloween II” is underperforming at the box office and earning sour reviews from fans and critics alike. Yet there’s already talk of a third film in the rebooted franchise.
Why make another “Halloween” if the franchise is faltering?
Blame the third dimension.
Entertainment Weekly reports in its latest box office chart that a 3-D “Halloween” film is under way.
The rise – again – of 3-D filmmaking is proving to be another way studios can convince themselves to greenlit otherwise sketchy projects. No 3-D, no “Halloween III.”
It’s the same phenomenom I witnessed as a teen-age movie fan. Junk disguised as major motion pictures, like “Jaws 3-D” and “Comin’ at Ya,” milked the 3-D craze even though neither project should have made it past the script phase.
The new 3-D technology, while markedly improved since then, could still wear out its welcome. Talk of a new wave of 3-D flat screen televisions seems like a dicey proposition given the public’s confusion over HD. And won’t horror fans get bored of seeing sharp implements jump off the screen?
The 3-D renaissance does have its perks. Kids clearly dig 3-D confections like “Monsters vs. Aliens” and “Up,” and James Cameron promises to prove 3-D is more than just another theatrical gimmick in December with “Avatar.”
But for movie fans, the 3-D revolution means more clutter at the box office – and more sequels we really didn’t need in the first place.
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree, I loved “Up” but the polarized glasses washed out the picture. The 2-d version of UP was substantially better than it’s dimensional counterpart.
I have some faith in Cameron with “Avatar” (Titanic doesn’t hold up well to age)…but from what most people tell me, the 3-D is what made the trailer…and the flat version seemed like a video game version of “Dances with Wolves”.
Until 3-D technology can be delivered without washing out the picture and used without clunky glasses, I don’t know how well it will do. Cool as some of it is, I don’t go out of my way to see a 3-D presentation…nor an IMAX version. Quality films sell me, not the gimmick.
Good points … the glasses today are better than before, but it’s still a clunky experience.
I left this comment at Dirty Harry’s Place in November 2007. It’s even more appropriate today, even if late to this article.
Dirty Harry wrote, on Libertas, “Once again I’m underwhelmed by the 3-D but more than willing to confess that it’s probably me.”
The 3-D effect of human binocular vision is only strong for small (6?) close objects (3?). The psychological feeling that 3-D objects are close and small is reinforced every moment of every day.
No matter what other cues are planted in the visuals, the feeling that an object displaying the 3-D characteristics of binocular vision is small and close cannot be overcome.
Other aspects of 3-D, such as foreshortening, lighting, parallax, disproportionate magnification of extremely close objects, etc. do not rely on binocular vision and can be shown and exploited via ordinary film.
Old black and white movies that move in for extreme closeup can suddenly leap off the screen via the 3-D effect of disproportionate magnification.
The GAF viewmaster (remember those?) worked best with cartoons, etc. There the “small, close” effect was enhanced by the knowledge and feel of the small, close, projector.
3-D glasses will always be a gimmick, unless they’re about objects that are small in real life. Obvious contenders are “Toy Story”, “Toy Story 2?, “Army Men”, “Small Soldiers”, “Antz”, “A Bug’s Life”, etc. All could have benefited from 3D and still not disoriented viewers.
Just remember not to force 3D effects onto large or far away objects.