In an era when college students are scavenging for every possible cent, four dollars extra for a movie ticket can mean the difference between a meal at Taco Bell and no meal. Movies alone are already $10 if you’re lucky. Adding a substantive chunk of dough for added dimension may not seem worth it or not. Well, here are some things to consider when deciding whether to make the purchase or not.
- Animated or Not?
- IMAX or Not?
- Filmed in 3D?
Often, animated movies like "Frozen" or "Inside Out" are released in 3D. I have almost never paid for the extra charge for an animated movie. Consider this: whereas live action films are capturing real environments and making them come alive, an animated film is never intended to fool the viewer to think that we are watching real objects that were actually conjured up in a studio. In live action blockbusters, while there is a great deal of computer animation for visual effects, they are designed to blend in with a real environment and create a more engrossing effect when giving three dimensions. An animated film is going to seem like an animated film regardless of whether there is 3D involved or not, and as such, is not likely worth the extra cost.
Despite what viewers may feel about 3D, IMAX formats offer far more than just three dimensions. IMAX is notable for the vastly larger screen, the curved angle of the screen, and the much louder, resonating speakers. So, if I want to see a movie in IMAX and it is not being offered in IMAX 2D, I will normally opt for the IMAX 3D over the regular non-IMAX 2D formats. Consider "The Force Awakens."
Since that film was a "Star Wars" film, I wanted to see star destroyers plowing through the endless black of space on the biggest screen possible. As there was no IMAX 2D, I splurged and went for the IMAX 3D showings (two times). I was absolutely satisfied with my choice, as I wanted to see Star Wars on the biggest screen possible. The 3D in "The Force Awakens" was post-converted (a topic we shall get to next), yet it looked beautiful and added depth rather than a distracting, blurry gimmick, especially on the humongous IMAX screen available to me. So, in general, seeing a movie in IMAX is the ultimate experience due to the sound and size of the screen. If the option arises, the 3D in IMAX films is most certainly not worth missing out on the experience.
There are two different ways to employ 3D in film. One of them is to post-convert the film after it is captured on camera. This means that a movie will be shot with 2D cameras and treated afterward to create the 3D effect. This is employed in the Marvel movies, and often, the effect wears off and does not offer much more depth or gradience to the movies. This method is far more common than the alternative, where a film is captured using 3D cameras. Famous examples of the second method employed include the recent "Hobbit" trilogy and "Prometheus." This effect is far more engrossing, as the 3D adds visual depth and is always noticeable in a good way. I often do research to see if the film in question is shot in 2D and post-converted or shot in 3D. For instance, consider "The Martian." Not released in IMAX, the tipping point for why I saw the film in 3D was the fact it was shot in 3D.
Of course, post-conversion can look just as good as shot in 3D on very rare occasions. Some films that come to mind are "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "The Walk."
Overall, if a movie is not being shown in IMAX, animated, or post-converted into 3D, it is likely not worth it to splurge and the cheaper 2D showings will leave one more satisfied.
